::1:: APHC010166802025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] TUESDAY ,THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 8591/2025 Between: Yelamanchili Bhuvaneswari Devi ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. B P RAJU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE ::2:: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 8591/2025 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 an appropriate Writ order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of Respondents are threatening to dispossess of an extent of Ac.0-30 cents of Garden/Thota in R.S.No.34/2 situated in Satyavolu (V), Pedapadu (M), Eluru District without issuing any notice to the Petitioner and without giving any opportunity to the Petitioner and without hearing the petitioner, as highly illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law and clear violation of Principles of Natural Justice and clear violation of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct the Respondents not to dispossess from an extent of Ac.0.30 cents of Garden/Thota in R.S.No.34/2 situated in Satyavolu (V), Pedapadu (M), Eluru District without following the Due Processes of law and 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 his land, without following due process of law. ::3:: 3. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue, admitted that the petitioner is continuing in possession of the subject land and the respondents authorities would follow due process of law and requested to pass appropriate orders. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits the petitioner is absolute owner of Garden/Thota in an extent of Ac.0.30 cents in R.S.No.34/2, situated in Satyavolu (V), Pedapadu (M), Eluru District. In the above subject land, the petitioner raised mango trees, Sapota Trees, Coconut trees and orange trees etc. The petitioner has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject land from the date of execution of document i.e., since 2001 onwards. Around the garden/thota the petitioner erected fencing with cement poles. 5. While the matter stood thus, the respondents are threatening to dispossess from the subject land without issuing any notice to the petitioner and without giving any opportunity to the petitioner and without hearing to the petitioner. On 30.03.2025 respondents came to the petitioner’s subject land and tried to remove the fencing and cement poles. Hence the writ petition. ::4:: 6. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Revenue and Sri Y. Koteswara Rao, learned counsel for Respondent No.5. 7. 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 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. Further, the Respondents are directed to re- survey the subject land and make the necessary demarcation. 1 2004 (1) SCC 769 ::5:: 8. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of, with the consent of both the counsel. No costs. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA Dt: 01.04.2025 krk ::6:: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA 97 WRIT PETITION NO: 8591/2025 Dt: 01.04.2025 krk