APHC010147842025 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: 7554/2025 Between: Ponnada Annapurnamma ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P VISESWAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 7554/2025 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 respondent Nos. 4 and 5 in trying to dispossess the petitioner from his land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.3.89 cents in Sy.No.222-6 situated at Vandrangi Village, GanguvariSingadam Mandal, Srikakulam District, without following due process of law as illegal and arbitrary; consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property of the petitioner. 2. 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. 3. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents furnished written instructions issued by respondent No.4, wherein, the relevant portion of the said instructions is extracted hereunder: “It is humbly submitted that there is a strong title dispute on the subject land and the said land is a private land. There are strict instructions of the Government that the Revenue Department shall not interfere into the private lands/ Zeroyathi land and decide the ownership/ title vide Memo No.58138/SS-1A/2010-6, Revenue (SS) Department dated 30.12.2010. 4. On perusal of the said instructions, it is evident that the respondent authorities are not interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property of the petitioner since the subject land is a private land. He further submits that if the respondents intend to dispossess the petitioner from the subject property, the respondents would follow due process of law. 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 “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 respondent authorities are directed not to dispossess the petitioner from the subject property, 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 1 2004 (1) SCC 769 100 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 7554/2025 Date:28.03.2025 BSP