Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 13437 (AP)

Mopada Pydiraju v. The Special Officer,

WP/10099/2020 · 2025-09-09

Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION No.10099 OF 2020 ORDER: 1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, declaring the action of the respondents in threatening to dispossess the petitioners from their respective house plots, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the private property of the petitioners without following due process of law. 2. The petitioners claims to be the owners of various extents of land in Sy.No.122 of Chinthalavalasa Village, Vizianagaram District. The petitioners are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject land without any interruption whatsoever. The petitioners submit that, the respondents are trying to interfere into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners’ subject land. Questioning the action of the respondents, the present writ petition is filed. 3. During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners, without touching the merits of the case, requested this Court to issue a direction to the respondents not to dispossess the petitioners from their land without following due process of law. NV,J W.P.No.10099 of 2020 2 4. Sri Y. Koteswara Rao, Learned Standing Counsel for Gram Panchayat submits that, in the event the respondents propose to evict the petitioners, the respondents would follow due process of law and requested to pass appropriate orders. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for Gram Panchayat and perused the material available on record. 6. When the petitioners are 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 petitioners are in possession of the subject property, the respondents are directed not to dispossess the petitioners from the subject 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. 8. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed. _____________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA Date:10.09.2025 SP 1 2004 (1) SCC 769 NV,J W.P.No.10099 of 2020 3 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION No.10099 OF 2020 Date:10.09.2025 W SP