::1:: APHC010167552025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [0] TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 8656/2025 Between: Mutcha Srinivasa Rao ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SRINIVAS AMBATI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE ::2:: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 8656/2025 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 respondents 2 to 6 at the instance of the respondents 7 to 15 in taking steps to dispossess the petitioner and highhandedly trespassing into the petitioner’s agricultural land admeasuring Ac.1.18 cents in Survey No.178-13 situated in Killipalem Village of Srikakulam Mandal in Srikakulam District and converting the said land into water body and park at the request of the respondents 7 to 15 without following due process of law, as illegal, irregular, irrational and violative of provisions of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and offends Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with petitioner’s land admeasuring Ac.1.18 cents in Survey No.178-13 situated in Killipalem Village of Srikakulam Mandal in Srikakulam District and also not to undertake any work activities to convert petitioner’s said land into water body and park without following due process 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 ::3:: respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from his land, without following due process of law. 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, possessor and enjoyer of the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.1.18 cents in Sy.No.178-13 situated in Killipalem Village of Srikakulam Mandal in Srikakulam District. The petitioner purchased the above said land from his vendor under registered sale deed dated 30.03.2024 vide document No.6577/2024 and since the date of purchase of the above subject land, the petitioner is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the subject land without any interruption by anyone at any point of time. The then Tahsildar, Srikakulam Mandal also mutated the petitioner’s name in online webland revenue records i.e., 1-B Form. 5. While things stood thus, when one Mutcha Ramana Murthy tried to trespass into petitioner’s subject land without any right, title, interest or possession the petitioner instituted O.S.No.67/2025 on the file of learned III Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-Excise Court at Srikakulam and also ::4:: petitioner filed IA.No.79/2025 against the above said person who is defendant in the said suit seeking a prayer to grant ad-interim injunction against him and the Hon’ble Court was pleased to grant ad-interim injunction against him and his henchmen on 27.02.2025 until filing of the counter. 6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submits that un-official respondent Nos.7 to 15 along with the office staff of the respondent Nos.4 and 5 visited the subject land during third week of March, 2025 and without issuing any notice to the petitioner conducted survey of petitioner’s subject land and proclaimed in the village that they would convert petitioner’s subject land into water body and park with government funds. Hence the writ petition. 7. Heard Sri Srinivas Ambati, learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Revenue and Sri M. Krishna Rao, learned counsel for un-official respondent Nos.7 to 15. 8. It is a 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 ::5:: 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, he cannot be dispossessed, without following due process of law. Therefore, the respondents are directed not to dispossess the petitioner from his land, except by due process of law. 9. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA Dt: 01.04.2025 krk 1 2004 (1) SCC 769 ::6:: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA 104 WRIT PETITION NO: 8656/2025 01.04.2025 krk