1 APHC010151092020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] TUESDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 9276/2020 Between: 1. B V RAO, FATHER NAME.LATCHANNA AGE. 65, R/O.METTA VEEDHI, PEDDA PADMAPURAM MELIAPUTTI MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYAT RAJ, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2. THE COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT, AT SRIKAKULAM. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, MANDAL REVENUE OFFICER, MELIYAPUTTI MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 4. THE GRAMPANCHAYAT, PEDDA PADMAPURAM VILLAGE, MELIAPUTTI MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the arbitrary and high handed proposed action of respondents herein in dispossession of the petitioner, by demolition of existing structures and compound wall of house site property covered by patta granted on 03.03.1986 by the 3rd respondent to an extent of 0.02 cents situated at Sy.No.291/1 Pedda Padmapuram Village, Meliaputti Mandal, Srikakulam District purported to be for construction of Grama sachivalayam therein, without Notice and/or following the due procedure prescribed under Law as wholly illegal, unconstitutional, violative of Article 14, 21 and 300- A of Constitution of India, Human Right as well contrary to the provisions of the A.P.Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and for a consequential direction to the respondents refraining them from dispossession of the petitioner from the aforementioned property, until due procedure as per law is followed including acquisition of property and payment of compensation to the petitioner and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SRINIVASA RAO PUTLURI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. KOTI REDDY IDAMAKANTI (SC FOR ZPP MPP AND GRAM PAN) 2. GP FOR REVENUE 3. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 3 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENAKTESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO.9276 of 2020 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 arbitrary and highhanded proposed action of respondents herein in dispossession of the petitioner, by demolition of existing structures and compound wall of house site property covered by patta granted on 03.03.1986 by the 3rd respondent to an extent of Ac.0.02 cents situated at Sy.No.291/1, Pedda Padmapuram Village, Meliaputti Mandal, Srikakulam District purported to be for construction of Grama Sachivalayam therein, without Notice and/or following the due procedure prescribed under Law as wholly illegal, unconstitutional, violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, Human Right, contrary to the provisions of A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and for a consequential direction to the respondents refraining them from dispossession of the petitioner from the aforementioned property, until due procedure as per law is followed including acquisition of property and payment of compensation to the petitioner and pass” 2. During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner, without touching the merits of the case, requested this Court to issue a 4 direction to the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from his land, without following due process of law. 3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Respondents, admitted that the petitioner is in continuous possession of subject land and the respondents authorities would follow due process of law and requested to pass appropriate orders. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the land in Sy.No.291/1 to an extent of Ac.23.23 cents situated at Pedda Padmapuram Village, Meliaputti Mandal, Srikakulam District, and as per the revenue records it was classified as Poramboke. The 1st respondent-State in its wisdom for the well being and welfare as well in the interest of the poor persons of village have taken a decision to assign the same for house sites. Accordingly, a line was drawn and evolved a scheme to identify the persons eligible for the benefit by the authorities. Each one of beneficiaries was assigned Ac.0.02 cents of land each for house sites and pattas have been granted in their favour in exercise of powers vested under the Revenue Board Standing Order No.21, clause ii of Para No.7. Petitioner was also granted patta through proceedings 5 No.505/95, dated 31.03.1981 by the 3rd respondent. Consequent upon, inducted into possession. 5. While things stood thus, to the surprise of petitioner, recently couple of days back when the petitioner visited his property found that, the compound wall constructed around the site was demolished and the sheds raised by the petitioner was also removed. After enquiry it is revealed that the 4th respondent has undertaken this high handed action for the purpose of constructing an office building, which is without any notice or hearing and following the procedure as per law and in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the petitioner. Hence the writ petition. 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 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 6 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 09.09.2025 krk 1 2004 (1) SCC 769 7 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENAKTESWARLU NIMMAGADDA 401 WRIT PETITION NO.9276 of 2020 09.09.2025 krk