APHC010168252025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] FRIDAY ,THE FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 8837/2025 Between: Shaik Hussen Bl, ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. RAMALAKSHMANA REDDY SANEPALLI 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: 8837/2025 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 the respondent Nos.4 to 6 in passing oral orders to halt the construction of petitioner house in Sy.No./L.P.M.No.1120, 1122, 1110, 1117, Layout No.PWD Work Shop Layout, Plot No.93 to an extent of 72.60 Sq. of Macherla Town, Palnadu District as illegal, unjust, colourable exercise of power, arbitrary and violation of principals of Natural Justice and contrary to Article 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent No.4 not to interfere with the petitioner’s property as well as with the construction of house in Sy.No./L.P.M.No.1120, 1122, 1110, 1117, Layout No.PWD Work Shop Layout, Plot No.93 to an extent of 72.60 Sq. of Macherla Town, Palnadu 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 subject property as well as construction of the house without following due process of law. 3. 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. 3 4. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government 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 interfere with the petitioner’s subject property as well as construction of house, except by due process of law. 5. 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 0044..0044..22002255 TTPPSS 1 2004 (1) SCC 769 4 201 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO:8837 of 2025 04.04.2025 TTPPSS