APHC010132252025 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: 6980/2025 Between: Polu Anasuyamma ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. T DIWAKAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION No.6980 OF 2025 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India seeking the following relief:- “to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus challenging the illegal action of the respondents more particularly 3rd and 4th respondents in interfering and threatening to dispossess the petitioner from her agricultural patta land situated in Survey No.171/P5 to an extent of Ac.3.55 cents of Obannapeta Village, Kondapuram Mandal, Y.S.R Kadapa District as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principal of Natural Justice and contrary to Articles 14, 21 and 300A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere and dispossess the petitioner from her agricultural patta land without following the due process of Law and pass such other order or orders...” 2. The case of the petitioner in brief is that the petitioner herein is the absolute owner and possessor of the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.4.60 cents in Sy.No.171/P5 of Obannapeta Village, Kondapuram Mandla, Y.S.R. Kadapa District having acquired the same through a registered sale deed vide Doc.No.366/1999. Since the date of purchase, the petitioner has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject land without there being any interference or hindrance from any quarter. Having recognized her possession, the revenue authorities issued pattadar pass book, 1-B, Adangal in her favour. 3. While things stood thus, respondent No.1 has proposed for land acquisition for State Highway Diversion Road and a notification dated 21.01.2009 was issued to that effect. Pursuant to the same, an extent of land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.1.05 cents in Sy.No.171/2 was acquired by respondent No.1 after duly paying compensation towards the share of the petitioner. As such, the petitioner continued her possession in the remaining extent of land i.e., Ac.3.55 cents. Thereafter, the revenue authorities more particularly, respondent Nos. 3 and 4 interfered with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject land of the petitioner. For which, the petitioner herein issued a legal notice dated 27.04.2024 to the respondents demonstrating that the petitioner is in possession of the subject land and requested the authorities not to interfere with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject land. Even after receipt of the said notice, the respondents neither considered the request of the petitioner nor stopped from interfering with the subject land. Hence, the writ petition. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondents. 5. 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 and dispossess the petitioner from the subject property without following due process of law. 6. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for the respondents submits that if the respondents intend to dispossess the petitioner from the subject land, they would follow due process of law. 7. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government pleader for the respondents, 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 violating 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 “RameGowda (dead) by L.Rs. v. M.Varadappa Naidu (Dead) by L.Rs and another.1, 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 the subject property, except by following due process of law. 8. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition shall stand closed. _________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 19.03.2025 BSP 12004 (1) SCC 769 93 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION No.6980 of 2025 19.03.2025 BSP