NV,J W.P.No.7154 of 2025 APHC010140922025 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: 7154/2025 Between: K Kalavathi ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. O UDAYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: NV,J W.P.No.7154 of 2025 ORDER 1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India claiming the following relief: “To issue writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No 4 in issuing the 24 hours Vacate Notice vide proceeding in Roc No A/WP751/2025 dt 17.03.2025 on the premise of non filing of the Appeal against the proceedings of 4th Respondent vide Roc A/18/2024 dt 08.01.2025 overlooking the filing of the Appeal of 2025 against the Order dt 08.01.2025 passed by the 4th Respondent is arbitrary illegal violation of Principles of Natural Justice and Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 2. Though the petitioner made several allegations against the respondents, during hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner requested this Court, to issue a direction to the 3rd respondent to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner. 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue readily agreed to dispose of the appeal, if any pending with the respondents. 5. In view of the submission of the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, I need not decide the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the petition. This Court is conscious that no such direction be issued, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in “The Government of India v. P.Venkatesh1”, wherein the Apex Court held that such orders may make for a quick or easy disposal of cases in overburdened adjudicatory institutions. But, 1 2019 (8) SCALE 544 NV,J W.P.No.7154 of 2025 they do no service to the cause of justice. As the learned counsel for the petitioner himself requested to issue a direction to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner, I find no other alternative except to issue such direction. 6. If the petitioner is in settled possession and enjoyment of the property, she 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. 2”. 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, till disposal of the appeal. 7. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 3rd respondent to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner, in accordance with law, within three (03) months today and not to dispossess the petitioner from the subject property, except by due process of law, till disposal of the appeal. 8. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed. _____________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA Date: 19.03.2025 SP 2 2004 (1) SCC 769 NV,J W.P.No.7154 of 2025 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 7154/2025 Date:19.03.2025 W sp