APHC010164092025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [0] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA PRESENT WRIT PETITION No: 8412 of 2025 Between: Avala Siddaiah, ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. VMR LEGAL Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following Order: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents in proposing/proceeding to dispossess the petitioner from Plot No.343 situated on the land up to an extent of 88 Sq.Yds in Plot No.343, Sy.No.1515, Indiramma Colony, Chandragiri Grama Panchayat limits, Tirupathi District without issuance of any notice is 2 as per se illegal, manifestly arbitrary, unconstitutional besides being violative of Principles of Natural Justice besides being opposed to the very spirit and object of Justice and Fair Play and Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Article 14, 19, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and for a consequential direction to follow due process of law as envisaged under law. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue and Sri M.Sudheer, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.6/Gram Panchayat and perused the material available on record. 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 petitioner from their land without following due process of law. 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue submits that, if the petitioner is in possession of the subject property, the respondents would follow due process of law and requested to pass appropriate orders. 5. When the petitioner is in settled possession and enjoyment of the property, they cannot be dispossessed, without following due 3 process of law in view of the law declared by the Hon’ble 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 dispossess the petitioner from the subject property, except by due process of law. Respondents are further directed not to demolish the structures of the petitioner. 6. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission with the consent of both the counsel. No costs. Consequently, interlocutory applications, if any, pending shall stand closed. ________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 28.03.2025 PSA 1 2004 (1) SCC 769 4 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION No.8412 of 2025 28.03.2025 PSA