APHC010126332025 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: 6667/2025 Between: Badaganti Nagamani ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. NARAM NAGESWARA RAO 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: 6667/2025 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 the 3rd respondent making attempts to interfere with agricultural operations and threatening to demolition tobacco barren shed situated in an agricultural land of Ac.2.00 in R.S.No.143 situated at Parimpudi Narayanapuram village, Jeelugumilli Mandal is illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice and pass such other order.” 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the absolute owner of the agricultural land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.2.00 cents in R.S.No.143 situated at Parimpudi Narayanapuram Village, Jeelugumilli Mandal. The petitioner constructed tobacco barren shed in the said land. While things stood thus, the 3rd respondent came to the petitioner’s property and directed the petitioner to vacate the tobacco barren shed since it is situated within the residential area and causing air pollution. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition. 3 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents submits that if the respondent authority intend to dispossess the petitioner from the subject property, they will follow due process of law. 5. 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. 6. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission with the consent of both the counsel. No costs. As a sequel miscellaneous application, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 18.03.2025 TTPPSS 1 2004 (1) SCC 769 4 120 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO:6667 of 2025 18.03.2025 TTPPSS