::1:: APHC010122332025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] TUESDAY ,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 6434/2025 Between: D Ramachandra ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. PRAKASH C Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME 2. GP FOR REVENUE This Court made the following ORDER: 1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “..to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents for trying to demolish/disposes the petitioner without following the due process of law from property land in Sy.No.102/2B an extent of Ac.0.35 cents situated at Kothakota Village, V.Kota Mandal, Chittoor District as illegal, arbitrary besides violation of principles of Natural Justice consequently direct the Respondents not to interfere in to the lands of petitioner in Sy.No.102/2B an extent of Ac.0.35 cents situated at Kothakota Village, V.Kota Mandal, Chittoor District forthwith and pass...” 2 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner acquired the subject property through a registered gift deed bearing Document No. 4523/2019, dated 12.09.2019, from his mother in Sy.No.102/2B, admeasuring to an extent of Ac.0.35 cents, at Kothakota Village, Chittoor District. Since then, the petitioner has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property and he got pattadar passbook and title deed in his favor, and also his name was mutated in the revenue records, with 1B and Adangal issued by the competent authorities. He further submits that the petitioner has a borewell in the said property used for agricultural purposes and constructed a shed. However, the respondents authorities are trying to demolish the foundation of shed without issuing any notice to the petitioner or following due process of law, which is arbitrary and violates the principles of natural justice. Additionally, unofficial respondents No. 7 and 8 have allegedly created fake certificates and are unlawfully interfering with the petitioner’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. Hence, the present Writ Petition. 2. During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner, without touching the merits of the case, requested this Court to issue a 3 direction to the respondents not to demolish/dispossess the petitioner from the subject land, without following due process of law. 3. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Respondents, admitted that the petitioner is continuing the possession of subject land and the respondents authorities would follow due process of law and requested to pass appropriate orders. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents. 5. It is settled proposition of law that when the petitioner is in settled possession and enjoyment of the property, the respondents are not entitled to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner and such highhanded action of the respondents would amount to depriving the petitioner’s constitutional right guaranteed under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, besides violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Even assuming for a moment that this petitioner’s possession is illegal, still, the petitioner is required to be afforded an opportunity before taking appropriate action and 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, 1 2004 (1) SCC 769 4 when the petitioner is in settled possession and enjoyment of the property, he cannot be dispossessed, without following due process of law. Therefore, the respondents are directed not to dispossess the petitioner from his property, except by due process of law. 6. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of, with the consent of both the counsel. No costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications if any pending, shall stand closed. _____________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA 18.03.2025 klk 5 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENAKTESWARLU NIMMAGADDA 442 WRIT PETITION NO.6434 of 2025 18.03.2025 klk