::1:: APHC010165582025 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: 8478/2025 Between: India China Ankaiah, ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. DR G V RAVI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 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 writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the 3rd Respondent in installing the warning board in his land an extent of Ac 450 cents of dry landin S No 219/26 out of Ac 38765 cents of land in Marrigunta Village KondapuramMandalam S P S R Nellore District in which now tobacco crop is ready to harvest as illegal arbitrary and violation of Article14 19 21 of the Constitution of India and against the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents not to cause any obstacles to do cultivation in his land until disposal of the writ petition and pass...” 2 2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was allotted dry land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.4.50 in Survey No.219/26 of Marrigunta Village, Kondapuram Mandal, SPSR Nellore District, by the Government in the year 2006. Since then, the petitioner has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the said land. The petitioner was also issued pattadar passbooks and 1-B Adangal for the subject land and has been carrying out agricultural operations, particularly by cultivating tobacco. While things stood thus, the 3rd respondent is interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject land and installed a warning board stating that the land belongs to the Government. As a result, workers are not coming forward to harvest the tobacco crop, causing the petitioner to suffer heavy losses. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 3rd respondent is interfering with the petitioner’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property without following due process of law by installing a warning board on the subject land. The tobacco crop is now ready for harvest, and if the petitioner is not allowed to proceed with harvesting, it will result in severe financial loss. Hence, the present writ petition. 3 4. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents furnished written instructions dated 01.04.2025 issued by the 3rd respondent wherein it is stated that:- “(5)the petitioner illegally occupied the land to an extent of Ac.4-50 cents of dry lands in Sy.No.219/16 of Marrigunta village, Kondapuram Mandal. Hence, installed warning board in sy.not.land. No one should occupy this land, legal action will be initiated against the violator.219/16 of Marrigunta village, Kondapuram Mandal instructing that “this is government land no one should occupy this land, legal action will be initiated against the violators”. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents. 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 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 4 declared by the Apex Court in “Rame Gowda (dead) by L.Rs. v. M.Varadappa Naidu (Dead) by L.Rs.1 Therefore, the respondents are directed to follow the due procedure as contemplated under the law. If they intend to take any action against the subject property of the petitioner, they shall do so only by following the due process of law. As a one-time measure, the petitioner shall be permitted to harvest the tobacco crop, if he is indeed in possession of the subject property. 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 02.04.2025 klk 1 2004 (1) SCC 769 5 242 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENAKTESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO.8478 of 2025 02.04.2025 klk