::1:: APHC010163012025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] THURSDAY ,THE THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 8733/2025 Between: Kommuri Prasanthi ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. BALAJI MEDAMALLI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE ::2:: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENAKTESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION No.8733 of 2025 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 action of the respondent authorities particularly the 4th respondent herein in trying to dispossess the petitioner from her land in an extent of Ac.2.33 cents in Sy.No.88-1 of Nukanapalli revenue Village, Obulavaripalli Mandal, Annamayya District without following due process of law and without issuing any notice as highly arbitrary, illegal, null and void and against the principles of natural justice and violative of fundamental rights apart from the Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct the respondent authorities not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the above said land in an extent of Ac.2.33 cents in Survey No.88-1 of Nukanapalli revenue village, Obulavaripalli Mandal, Annamayya District and to pass” 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 dispossess the petitioner from her land, without following due process of law. 3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Respondents, admitted that the petitioner is continuing in the possession of subject land and the ::3:: respondents authorities would follow due process of law and requested to pass appropriate orders. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the petitioner is absolute owner, possessor and enjoyer of agricultural land in an extent of Ac.2.33 cents in Survey No.88-1 of Nukanaplli revenue Village, Obulavaripalli Mandal, Annamayya District having succeeded the same from her predecessors. The revenue authorities have also mutated the petitioner’s name in the revenue records like Adangal and 1B register and also in the web land records. The authorities have also issued pattadar passbook and title deed in favour of the petitioner for the subject land. 5. While things stood thus, on 05.03.2025 the officials of 4th respondent came to the subject land and asked the petitioner to vacate the land stating that the subject land is required for the purpose of providing assignments in favour of the weaker sections or else they will resume the land by showing violation of conditions of assignment without there being any such violation. 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 ::4:: 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 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, she cannot be dispossessed, without following due process of law. Therefore, the respondents are directed not to dispossess the petitioner from her 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 03.04.2025 krk 1 2004 (1) SCC 769 ::5:: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENAKTESWARLU NIMMAGADDA 87 WRIT PETITION NO.8733 of 2025 03.04.2025 krk