APHC010138432025 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: 7061/2025 Between: R Chandrakala ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. C PRAKASH 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.7061 OF 2025 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India seeking the following relief:- “to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring the action of the official respondents in trying to dispossess the petitioner from Sy.No.867/2 to an extent of Ac.0.12 cents, Sy.No.867/3 to an extent of Ac.0.11 cents, Sy.No.868 to an extent of Ac.0.14 cents, Sy.No.869 to an extent of Ac.0.13 cents, Sy.No.870 to an extent of Ac.0.45 cents, Sy.No.8671/2 to an extent of Ac.0.18 cents, Sy.No.836/1 to an extent of Ac.0.34 cents, Sy.No.483 to an extent of Ac.0.09 cents, Sy.No.980 to an extent of Ac.0.20 cents and Sy.No.276/3 to an extent of Ac.4.00 cents situated in Ippapenta Village, C.K.Dinne Mandal, Kadapa District at the instance of unofficial respondents, without following the due process of law is arbitrary, illegal and in violation of Articles 19, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner and to pass such other order or orders...” 2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner’s husband is the absolute owner and possessor of the lands admeasuring to an extent of Ac.0.12 cents in Sy.No.867/2, an extent of Ac.0.11 cents in Sy.No.867/3, an extent of Ac.0.14 cents in Sy.No.868, an extent of Ac.0.13 cents in Sy.No.869, an extent of Ac.0.45 cents in Sy.No.870, an extent of Ac.0.18 cents in Sy.No.8671/2, an extent of Ac.0.34 cents in Sy.No.836/1, an extent of Ac.0.09 cents in Sy.No.483, an extent of Ac.0.20 cents in Sy.No.980 and an extent of Ac.4.00 cents in Sy.No.276/3 situated at Ippapenta Village, C.K.Dinne Mandal, Kadapa District. Pursuant to his ownership, the petitioner’s husband was issued pattadar pass book in his favour. Later, the petitioner’s husband died on 08.10.2024 leaving the petitioner and her daughters as his legal heirs. Accordingly, the revenue authorities vide proceedings dated 22.02.2017 mutated the name of the petitioner in the revenue records and also issued pattada pass book in her favour. Since then, the petitioner has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property without there being any interference or hindrance from any quarter. While so, respondent authorities are interfering with the subject property of the petitioner and are threatening to disposes the petitioner from the subject property without issuing any notice and without following due procedure as contemplated under the law. Hence, the writ petition. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for revenue for the respondents. 4. 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 dispossess the petitioner from the subject property without following due process of law. 5. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for the respondents submits that if the respondents intend to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property of the petitioner, the respondents would follow due process of law. 6. 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.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. 7. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of, at the admission stage, with the consent of both the learned counsel. No costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition shall stand closed. _________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 19.03.2025 BSP 12004 (1) SCC 769 150 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION No.7061 of 2025 19.03.2025 BSP