APHC010112162025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] FRIDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 5558/2025 Between: G Rajeswari ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. RAJENDRA C Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: O R D E R: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the action of respondents 3 AND 4 at the instance of local political leaders in interfering with petitioners possession and enjoyment and contemplating to demolish her residential RCC building having Assessment No 2464 and 2465 bearing plot No 2 admeasuring an extent of Ac.0-03 cents covered by Sy.No.779/2 of Chinnatippasamudram Village within the limits of CTM Cross Road Gram Panchayat Madanapalle Mandal Annamayya District and to grant assignment patta in favour of third parties as illegal irregular irrational without any authority of law violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere in any manner with petitioners possession and enjoyment over the said RCC Building property .” During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner, without touching the merits of the case, requested this Court to issue a direction to the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from her land without following due process of law. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for Respondent No.4 – Gram Panchayat furnished written instructions dated 07.03.2025 issued by the Panchayat Secretary, CTM Cross Road Grama Panchayat, wherein it is stated that the Gram Panchayat did not involve in demolishing the RCC building of the petitioner and the issue is being taken up by the Revenue Department only. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue submits that, if the petitioner is in possession of the subject property, the respondents would follow due process of law and requested to pass appropriate orders. When the petitioner is in settled possession and enjoyment of the property, she cannot be dispossessed, without following due process of law in view of the law declared by the Apex Court in “Rame Gowda (dead) by L.Rs. v. M.Varadappa Naidu (Dead) by L.Rs.1”. Therefore, if the petitioner is in possession of the subject property, the respondents are directed not to dispossess the petitioner from the subject property, except by due process of law. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission with the consent of both the counsel. No costs. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed. _____________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA Date: 07.03.2025 SP 1 2004 (1) SCC 769 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 5558/2024 Date:07.03.2025 W sp