APHC010143362025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 7563/2025 Between: Chevveti Venkataramanamurthy ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. R.NAVEEN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following 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 the respondents in interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Petitioners land in Sy No 139/1A Sy No 139/2A Sy No 139/2C and Sy No 138/3 to an extent of Ac 035 cents Ac 1 06 cents Ac 0 32 cents Ac 0 26 cents respectively situated at Kapuluppada Village BheemunipatnamMandal Visakhapatnam District and trying to dispossess the Petitioner from the said land is as illegal arbitrary unjust and contrary to the Fundamental Rights enshrined under the Constitution of India and direct the 4th Respondent not to interfere with the peaceful possession of 2 the petitioners property without following due process of law and pass such other order.” 2. During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners, without touching the merits of the case, requested this Court to issue a direction to the respondents not to interfere with the petitioners’ peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property without following due process of law. 3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue submits that, if the petitioners are in possession of the subject property, the respondents would follow due process of law and requested to pass appropriate orders. 4. When the petitioners are in settled possession and enjoyment of the property, they 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 petitioners’ peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property, except by following 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. There shall be no order as to costs. 1 2004 (1) SCC 769 3 As a sequel miscellaneous application, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 25.03.2025 kkllkk 4 78 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO:7563 of 2025 25.03.2025 kkllkk