APHC010164402025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] MONDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 8508/2025 Between: Mylari Annamma ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V R REDDY KOVVURI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: 2 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 8508/2025 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.4 to 6 in attempting to demolish the house situated in an extent of Ac.0.03 cents of plot No.40 in Sy.No.870/3 situated in Nirmalagiri colony, Peddapalli Village, Siddout Mandal, YSR District belonging to petitioner at the behest of respondent No.7, without putting petitioner on notice and without following due process of law as arbitrary, illegal, contrary to Order dated 15.11.2023 made in W.P.No.29356 of 2023 and the well-established legal principles apart from being violative of the fundamental and Constitutional rights guaranteed to the petitioner under Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct respondents Nos.4 to 6 not to interfere with petitioner’s rights over the house situated in an extent of Ac.0.03 cents of plot No.40 in Sy.No.870/3, Nirmalagiri colony, Peddapalli village fields, Siddout Mandal, YSR District 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 and not to demolish the petitioner’s subject property without following due process of law. 3 3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue furnished the written instructions, wherein it is stated as follows: “It is submitted that on receiving complaint on social media and over phone call about the rasta encroachment the Village Revenue Officer, Peddapalli Village and Village Surveyor of Peddapalli village has inspected and reported that the disputed land in Sy.No.870/3 an extent of Ac.0.03 cents is noticed in plot No.36 which was a house site granted in favour of Ravula Pamulaiah S/o.Ravula Subbareddy but on field one Mylari Jaswin, W/o. Nelson was constructed house for an extent of Ac.0.03 cents and further occupied Ac.0.01 cents in existing Rasta in Plot No.36. Further it is submitted that Mylari Annamma constructed house site in Plot No.40 but not in Plot No.36. Further it is submitted that no coercive steps are taken for demolition of the subject land in Plot No.36 and Plot No.40 as on till date and respectively submitted that further action will be taken in accordance with law following the principles of natural justice 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 4 Pleader for the respondents, it is observed that when the petitioner is in settled possession and enjoyment of the subject property, she 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 demolish or interfere with the petitioner’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property, except by due process of law. 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 07.04.2025 TTPPSS 1 2004 (1) SCC 769 5 63 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO:8508 of 2025 07.04.2025 TTPPSS