APHC010122192025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] WEDNESDAY ,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 6169/2025 Between: Chilaka Nagarathnam and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. KOLLURU SATISH 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: 6169/2025 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 the action of respondent authorities in making efforts to dispossess the petitioner from the agricultural land situated respectively at Survey No.88-1A1 admeasuring each to an extent of Ac.1.20 cents and Ac.1.20 cents of the total extent of Ac.3.61 cents situated at Tirumaladevipets Village, T.Narasapuram Mandal, Eluru District, Andhra Pradesh without following procedure established by the law as illegal,l arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice and the act of authorities is against the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex court in the case of Rame Gowda V/S M.Varadappa Naidu Citation: 2003 LawSuit(SC) 1248 and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere into with the peaceful possession of the subject property situated at Survey No.88-1A1 admeasuring each to an extent of Ac.1.20 cents and Ac.1.20 cents of the total extent of Ac.3.61 cents situated at Tirumaladevipets Village, T.Narasapuram Mandal, Eluru District, Andhra Pradesh except due process of law and pass such other order.” 2. During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners, without touching the merits of the case, requested this Court to issue a direction to the respondents not to interfere with the petitioners’ peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property without following due process of law. 3 3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue submits that, if the petitioners are in possession of the subject property, the respondents would follow due process of law and requested to pass appropriate orders. 4. When the petitioners are in settled possession and enjoyment of the property, they 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 petitioners are in possession of the subject property, the respondents are directed not to interfere with the petitioners’ peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property, except by following due process of law. 5. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission with the consent of both the counsel. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel miscellaneous application, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 19.03.2025 TTPPSS 1 2004 (1) SCC 769 4 179 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO:6169 of 2025 19.03.2025 TTPPSS