::1:: APHC010154012025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 8002/2025 Between: Chintamani Siva Kala ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KUNUKU RAJA SEKHAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 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 or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the high handed acts of the Respondents in dispossessing the Petitioner as illegal arbitrary and violation of Article 19, 21, 86, 300A of the Constitution of India and direct the Respondents to refrain from any further encroachment on Petitioners land and to ensure that no further unlawful attempts to occupy Petitioners land are made by the villagers and consequently direct the Respondents to ensure that the agreedupon 5 square feet of land is used solely for the purposes of religious accommodation in the interest of justice and equity and pass...” 2 1. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was granted DKT patta land in the year 2021, situated in Survey No. 504-C, Sibyala Village, Rayachoty, and has been in possession and enjoyment of the subject property since then. However, the villagers, with the support of the 4th respondent, i.e., the Tahsildar, are trying to interfere with and dispossess the petitioner from his subject property without following due process of law. Hence, the present writ petition filed. 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’ authorities not to dispossess the petitioner from the subject land, without following due process of law. 3. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondents, admitted that the respondents authorities would follow due process of law and requested to pass appropriate orders. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents. 3 5. 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 be afforded an opportunity before taking appropriate action. Therefore, if the petitioner is in possession of the subject property, the respondents are directed not to dispossess the petitioner from the subject property, except by following due process of law. 6. 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 27.03.2025 klk 4 232 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENAKTESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO.8002 of 2025 27.03.2025 klk