IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 7017 OF 2025 Between: S. M. Rafi, S/o. Late S. Raheem Saheb, Aged about 67 years, Occ; Tea stall Business, R/o D.No.22-27, Sultab Sab Street, Punganur Town AND Municipality, Chittoor District. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by the PrI. Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District. The District Collector, Chittoor, Chittoor District. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Palamaner, Chittooor District. The Tahsildar, Punganur Mandal, Chittoor District. The Punganur Municipality, Rep. Its Commissioner, Punganur, Chittoor District. 2. 3. 4. 5. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring action on part of the 4^'' respondent without giving any opportunity and without following due process of law to demolish the petitioner tea shop at Koundinya river vacant site in Sy.No.145 of Punganur Town AND Municipality, Chittoor District is illegal, arbitrary, violative of the principles of natural justices and offends Articles 21 and 300 A of Constitution of India and consequently this Honble court to direct the respondents No.4 and 5 not to interfere for more further demolish the petitioner Tea Shop at Koundinaya river vacant site in Sy.no. 145 of Punganur Town AND Municipality, Chittoor District. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct to the respondents No.4 and 5 not to further demolish the petitioner Tea Shop at Koundinaya river vacant site in Sy.no. 145 of Punganur Town & Municipality. Chittoor District, pending disposal of the main writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI P. V. VENKATA RAVI SANKAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 : GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.5 : Mrs. V.SIREESHA RANI, SC FOR MUNICIPALITY The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010121782025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] MM FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 7017/2025 Between: ...PETITIONER S M Rafi AND ...RESPONDENT(S) The State Of Ap and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P V VENKATA RAVI SANKAR and Dr. P.B Reddy Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: 2 % THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 7017/2025 ORDER: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India seeking the following reliefs:- “to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring action on part of the 4^^ respondent without giving any opportunity and without following due process of law to demolish the petitioner tea shop at Koundinya river vacant site in Sy.No.145 of Punganur Town & Municipality, Chittoor District is illegal, arbitrary, violative of the principles of natural justices and offends Articles 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently this Hon’ble court to direct the respondents Nos. 4 and 5 not to interfere for further demolish the petitioner Tea Shop at Koundinaya river vacant site in Sy.No.145 of Punganur Town & Municipality, Chittoor District and pass such other order. ’’ 2. 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 interfere or demolish the petitioner’s subject tea shop without following due process of law. 3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue submits that, if the petitioner’s subject tea shop is not demolished so far, the respondents would follow due process of law and requested to pass appropriate orders. 4. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government s? Pleader for the respondents, it is observed that when the petitioner i; in settled possession and enjoyment of the subject property, he 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 LRs.r. Therefore, if the petitioner is in possession of the subject tea shop and if the same is not demolished so far, the respondents are directed not to interfere or demolish the petitioner’s subject tea shop, except by due process of law. IS 5. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel miscellaneous application, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. Sd/- K. TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// To SECTION OFFICER ^ Secretary, Revenue Department Pradesh, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District. 2. The District Collector, Chittoor, Chittoor District. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Palamaner, 4. The Tahsildar, Punganur Mandal, Chittoor District. 5. The Commissioner, Punganur Municipality 6. One CC to Sri P. V. Venkata Ravi Sankar, 7. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra 8. One CC to Mrs. V.Sireesha Rani 9. Three C.D. Copies. State of Andhra Chittooor District. Punganur, Chittoor District. Advocate [OPUC] Pradesh. [OUT] SC for Municipality (OPUC) Cnr HIGH COURT DATED:21/03/2025 ORDER WP.No.7017 of 2025 X 2 6 MAR 2025 § ^ . Current aeciion *2: C9, DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS