1 APHC010136022025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 7052/2025 Between: Vanthala Gurumurthy, ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. S SRINIVASA 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: 7052/2025 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 aggrieved by the action of the Respondents in interfering with Petitioner’s peaceful possession, ownership and enjoyment of Petitioner’s land in Sy.No.29-11A to an extent of Ac.1.29 cents, Arma Village, Dumbriguda Mandal, Alluri Seetharama Raju District without issuing any notice and without following any procedure under law, which is highly illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law and violations of Principles of Natural Justice and Articles 300-A, 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently, request that the respondents be directed not to interfere with the Petitioner’s peaceful possession, ownership and enjoyment of the land Sy.No.29-11A to an extent of Ac.1.29 cents, Arma Village, Dumbriguda Mandal, Alluri Seetharama Raju District without following any procedure under law 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 interfere with the petitioner’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of 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, 3 the respondents would follow due process of law and requested to pass appropriate orders. 4. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents, it is observed that when the petitioner is in settled possession and enjoyment of the subject 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”. 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 due process of law. 5. 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 21.03.2025 TTPPSS 1 2004 (1) SCC 769 4 221 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO:7052 of 2025 21.03.2025 TTPPSS