APHC010136652025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 7767/2025 Between: Boyilla Srinivasula Reddy ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. MARELLA RADHA 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: 7767/2025 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 respondent Nos.2 to 4 interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner’s agricultural land which contains - 250 lime trees situated in an extent of Ac.2.78 cents in Sy.No.536-2, Cheekavolu Village, Sydapuram Mandal, SPSR Nellore District without issuing any notice and without following any procedure contemplated under law as illegal, contrary to law, arbitrary, against the principles of natural justice and violation of Article 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct respondent Nos.2 to 4 not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner’s agricultural land admeasuring an extent of Ac.2.78 cents in Sy.No.536-2, Cheekavolu Village, Sydapuram Mandal, SPSR Nellore District 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 agricultural land without following due process of law. 3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue furnished the written instructions dated 18.03.2025, wherein it is stated as follows: “So far, the 4th respondent herein not initiated any action against the petitioner. 3 If the subject land is required to the public purpose are if any case to resume the land to Government, the 4th respondent herein, initiated action strictly in accordance with law and provisions laid under conditions of grant and other assignment laws, duly affording opportunity to the petitioner.” 4. 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 ”. Therefore, if the petitioner is in possession of the subject property, the respondents are directed not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner’s subject property, except by following 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 27.03.2025 TTPPSS 1 2004 (1) SCC 769 4 271 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO:7767 of 2025 27.03.2025 TTPPSS