APHC010129942025 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: 6520/2025 Between: Basa Apparao ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V V SATISH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR ROADS BUILDINGS 2. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: 2 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 6520/2025 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 respondents in resorting to dispossess the petitioner from his residential house and shop is illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India besides violation of principles of natural justice and to consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the petitioner’s house property situated in an extent of 150 sq. yds. in Sy.No.51/2 of Tungalam Village, Gajuwaka Manda, Visakhapatnam District and shops covered by trade license TL/06204/2018 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 dispossess the petitioner from the subject property without following due process of law. 3. 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. 4. Ms.Santhi Chandra, learned Standing Counsel for the APIIC furnished written instructions, wherein it is stated that the APIIC officials 3 has neither visited the petitioner house nor demanded to vacate the subject premises. 5. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for revenue and on perusal of the written instructions furnished by the learned Standing Counsel for the APIIC, it is observed that when the petitioner is in settled possession and enjoyment of the 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 L.Rs.1”. 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 interfere with the petitioner’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property, except by following due process of law. 6. 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. ________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 19.03.2025 TTPPSS 1 2004 (1) SCC 769 4 200 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO:6520 of 2025 19.03.2025 TTPPSS