APHC010146822025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 7803/2025 Between: TekkinaPullamma ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. NIMMAGADDA REVATHI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 7803/2025 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 insisting the petitioner to vacate her landed property admeasuring to an extent of Ac.5.49 cents out of Ac.52.59 cents covered in the un-divided Survey Nos.143/3, 156/2, 157/3, 158/3, 170 and 171 situated at Kamayyapalem Village, Jeelugumilli Mandal, Eluru District as illegal and arbitrary; consequently, direct the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession of the petitioner subject property. 2. During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the order dated 30.11.2024 passed by the Court of the Special Deputy Collector, Tribal Welfare, Polavaram, Eluru District, wherein, the Court categorically held as follows: “Hence the land held by respondent Smt.Tekkina Pullamma, W/o Venkata Ramaiah with an extent of Ac.4.00 cents in the joint un- divided Survey Nos.143/3, 156/2, 157/3, 158/3, 170, 171 in Kamayyapalem Village, Jeelugumilli Mandal is not in violation of the A.P.S.A.L.T.R. 1/59 as amended by 1/70 Act. In the result the complaint filed by Spl. Deputy Tahsildar, Tribal Welfare, Polavaram is hereby dis-allowed. An Appeal against the order lies before the project officer, ITDA, K.R.Puram and Addl. Agent to Government within a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of this order. 3. It is further informed that there is no other appeal pending in the subject matter. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be dispossessed without following due process of law. 4. 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. 5. When the petitioner is in settled possession and enjoyment of the property, the petitioner cannot be dispossessed, without following due process of law 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 ”. Therefore, if the petitioner is in possession of the subject property, the respondents are directed not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property of the petitioner, except by due process of law. 6. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission with the consent of both the counsel. No costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed. _____________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA Date:28.03.2025 BSP 12004 (1) SCC 769 104 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 7803/2025 Date:28.03.2025 BSP