Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 11815 (AP)

KONA ATCHIYYA NAIDU v. THE STATE OF AP

WP/7235/2025 · 2025-03-24

Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010138552025 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: 7235/2025 Between: Kona Atchiyya Naidu ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K N P VAMSIKRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 7235/2025 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 with the petitioner premises and agricultural dry land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.0.55 cents in Sy.No.100/7 situated at Patipalli Village, Munagapaka Mandal, Anakapalli District without issuing any notice or without following the procedure contemplated under law and without considering the representation dated 21.12.2024 submitted by the petitioner; consequently direct the respondents not to proceed further in any manner with regard to the property of the petitioner. 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 property of the petitioner without following due process of law. 3. Learned 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. When the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the property, the petitioner cannot be dispossessed, without following due process of law. Therefore, if the petitioner is in possession of the subject property, the respondents are directed not to dispossess the petitioner from the subject property, except by due process of law. 5. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission with the consent of both the counsel. No costs. 6. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed. _____________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA Date:24.03.2025 BSP 12 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 7235/2025 Date:24.03.2025 BSP