::1:: APHC010159822025 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: 8129/2025 Between: Arava Mani and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. SURYA TEJA ANUMOLU 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 order or direction more particularly one in nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents taking steps in dispossessing the petitioners during the subsistence of valid assignment pattas without issuing notice under the provisions of AP assigned act (POT 1977) in respect of the house sites of 0 3Cents each in sy no 100/1 and 101 of kottapalem village renigunta mandal as though there is no violation of assignment conditions as illegal arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of AP Assigned lands POT ACT 1977 and pass...” 2 1. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that all the petitioners belong to Scheduled Caste, Schedule Tribe and Backward Class community and eking their livelihood by plying with heavy vehicles and they are landless poor persons. All the people of SC, ST and BC community formed into an association in the name of Renigunta Lorry Workers Union vide Regd. No.758/88, and submitted applications to the revenue officials for allotment of house sites in Survey No.100/1 and 101 situated at Kothapalem, Renigunta Mandal, Chittoor District, and accordingly, the Tahsildar, Renigunta Mandal, after conducting enquiry, allotted house site pattas to an extent of Ac.0.03 cents each in the said survey numbers. Subsequently, the petitioners got constructed houses in their respective house sites. While things stood thus, the respondents’ authorities are trying to remove the subject houses and to dispossess the petitioners without issuing any notice under the provisions of the AP Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977, and without following the due process of law. Hence, the present writ petition. 2. During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners, without touching the merits of the case, requested this Court to issue a 3 direction to the respondents not to demolish/dispossess the petitioners from their subject property, without following due process of law. 3. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents, furnished written instructions dated 26.03.2025, wherein it is stated as follows:- “(i) If the petitioners are not available in the purported sites or in the subject lands in Sy.No.100/1 and 101, notice will be published in Kothapalem village where the lands are situated. (ii) A panchanama also will be recorded in the village. (iii) Connected revenue records will be verified and after completion of enquiry appropriate action will be taken in accordance with provisions of law”. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents. 5. It is settled proposition of law that when the petitioners are 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 petitioners’s constitutional right guaranteed 4 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 petitioners are required to 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 petitioners are in settled possession and enjoyment of the property, they cannot be dispossessed, without following due process of law. Therefore, the respondents are directed not to dispossess the petitioners from their subject property, except by 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 1 2004 (1) SCC 769 5 231 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENAKTESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO.8129 of 2025 27.03.2025 klk