1 APHC010143032025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] THURSDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 7258/2025 Between: Shaik Ahmed Ali, ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P NARASIMHULU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME 2. GP FOR REVENUE 2 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENAKTESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO.7258 of 2025 This Court made the following ORDER: 1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “..to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the Respondents Nos.3 to 6 herein in trying to demolish the commercial building / structure existing in Sy.No.87-1 situated at Mutyalacheruvu Revenue Village, Kadiri Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District as illegal, arbitrary, violation of Articles 14, 21 and 300- A of the Constitution of India and violation of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents not to demolish the above said property in the above survey number and pass”. 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Revenue and perused the material on record. 3. During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner, without touching the merits of the case, requested this Court to issue a 3 direction to the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from his land, without following due process of law. 4. Learned Assistant Government for Revenue furnished the written instructions issued by the 4th respondent which reads thus: “The land in Sy.No.87-1 total extent Ac.1.77 cents of Muthyalacheruvu (V), Kadiri Mandal is UAW assigned land and in webland holds in the name of Shaik Ahmed Ali. It has been ascertained from the Panchayat Secretary stated that, he was not made any attempt to demolish the buildings and not made any other activities in the subject land. None of the correspondences are made from this office and none of the Revenue Officials are involved in it.” 5. In view of clear and categorical observations made by the 4th Respondent vide above instructions, the Respondents are not interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner’s property. 6. 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 4 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 “Rame Gowda (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 his property, except by due process of law. 7. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of, with the consent of both the counsel. No costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications if any pending, shall stand closed. _____________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA 20.03.2025 krk 1 2004 (1) SCC 769 5 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENAKTESWARLU NIMMAGADDA 117 WRIT PETITION NO.7258 of 2025 20.03.2025 krk