APHC010151462025 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: 7729/2025 Between: Mudamala Jayamma ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. L J VEERA REDDY 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 or any other appropriate writ declaring the action of the Respondents particularly 3RD Respondent in attempting to evict the Petitioner from the land of land of Ac.3.00 in Sy.No.1641/6 and Ac.1.30 cents in Sy.No.1641/8 of Munnelli Revenue village, B.Kodur mandal, YSR Kadapa District without following the due process of law particularly the provisions of A.P.Land Encroachment Act, 1905 and also on extraneous considerations though the case of petitioner for mutation of the same apart from grant of assignment of the subject land is pending consideration as illegal, unjust, arbitrary and 2 against the principles of natural justice and also against the statutory provisions and also 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to evict the Petitioner from the land of Ac.3.00 in Sy.No.1641/6 and Ac.1.30 cents in Sy.No.1641/8 of Munnelli Revenue village, B.Kodur mandal, YSR Kadapa District without following due process of Law and with further direction to respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for mutation or in alternative for assignment of subject land and pass such other order.” 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 interfere with the petitioner’s 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 petitioner is in possession of the subject property, the respondents would follow due process of law and requested to pass appropriate orders. 4. When the petitioner is 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 petitioner’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property, except by following due process of law. 1 2004 (1) SCC 769 3 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. As a sequel miscellaneous application, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 25.03.2025 kkllkk 4 81 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO:7729 of 2025 25.03.2025 kkllkk