APHC010133442025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] MONDAY ,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 7193/2025 Between: Challa Katamaiah, ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. CKR ASSOCIATES Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 7193/2025 O R D E R: 1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents in interfering the petitioner from the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.7.00 cents in Sy.No.309-2A situated at Bathapalli village and Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District, without following due process of law as illegal and arbitrary. 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 interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property of the petitioner without following due process of law. 3. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue furnished written instructions dated 15.03.2025, wherein, the operative portion of the said instructions reads as follows: “Further, it is submitted that the present petitioner Challa Katamaiah, S/o,.Challa Chandraiah is having right as per documents for an extent of 6.00 acres, of land in Sy.No.309-2 and he has obtained pattadar pass books for same extent. But instead of his right he is in enjoyment for an extent of 7.08 acres i.e., 1.08 acres of excess 3 extent. Further the pattadar Koti Purushota\ham and Koti Naagesh having documents for an extent of 6.00 acres in Sy.No.309-6 but they are in enjoyment of 5.31 acres and an extent of 2.25 acres in Sy.No.309-8 but they are in enjoyment of 1.95 acres on the ground.” 4. On perusal of the said instructions, it is evident that the respondents are not interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property of the petitioner. He further submits that if the respondents intend to interfere with the subject property of the petitioner, they would follow due process of law. 5. It is settled proposition of law that, when the petitioner is in settled possession and enjoyment of the property, the petitioner 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 interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property of the petitioner, 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. 1 2004 (1) SCC 769 4 Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed. _____________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA Date:24.03.2025 LSP 5 167P THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO:7193/2025 Date:24.03.2025 LSP