APHC010161662025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] WEDNESDAY ,THE SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 8266/2025 Between: Grandhi Ramakrishna ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. T V S PRABHAKARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME 2. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: 2 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 8266/2025 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 declaring the action of respondent Nos.3 to 6 in interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property of the petitioner i.e., an extent of Ac.5.80 cts in Sy.No.203 of Sri Krishnapatnam Village, Rajanagaram Mandal, East Godavari District, without recourse to law more particularly when the civil dispute is O.S.NO.929/2023 pending on the file of V AddI. Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Rajamahendravaram between the petitioner and the 7th respondent is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents not to meddle with the possession and enjoyment of the property of the petitioner i.e., an extent of Ac.11.64 cts in Sy.No.202 and 203 of Sri Krishnapatnam Village without recourse to law 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 furnished the written instructions dated 02.04.2025, wherein it is stated as follows: 3 “In view of the above, as the subject matter is purely a civil dispute between the family members regarding the right over the land of their ancestral property. I further submit that the revenue court does not have the authority to determine land title; only a civil court is competent to decide such matters. In view of the above, the Revenue Department is not interfering with the said civil dispute.” 4. Further the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents categorically stated that the respondents are not interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner’s subject property. If the respondents intend to interfere, they will follow due process of law. 5. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents, it is observed that when the petitioner is in settled possession and enjoyment of the subject property, he 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 due process of law. 1 2004 (1) SCC 769 4 6. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel miscellaneous application, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 02.04.2025 TTPPSS 5 137 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO:8266 of 2025 02.04.2025 TTPPSS