::1:: APHC010170692025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] THURSDAY ,THE THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 8773/2025 Between: Kamalapuram Chinna Obaiah and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. V R REDDY KOVVURI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE ::2:: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENAKTESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION No.8773 of 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 the respondents No.2 to 4 in attempting to dispossess the petitioners from the land in an extent of Ac.3.40 cents in Sy.No.997-5, Ac.5.31 cents in Sy.No.2691-1, and Ac.1.34 cents in Sy.No.2663-5 of Sankavaram Village fields, Kalasapadu Mandal, YSR District, without adhering to due process of law and that too without issuing any notice, as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the well established legal principles, apart from being violative of the fundamental and the Constitutional rights guaranteed to the petitioners under Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300- A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent Nos.2 to 4 not to dispossess the petitioners from the land in an extent of Ac.3.40 cents in Sy.No.997-5, Ac.5.31 cents in Sy.No.2691-1, and Ac.1.34 cents in Sy.No.2663-5 of Sankavaram Village fields, Kalasapadu Mandal, YSR District and pass.” 2. During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners, without touching the merits of the case, requested this Court to issue a direction to the respondents not to dispossess the petitioners from their land, without following due process of law. ::3:: 3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Respondents, admitted that the petitioners are continuing in the possession of subject land and the respondents authorities would follow due process of law and requested to pass appropriate orders. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the originally the land in an extent of Ac.3.40 cents in Sy.No.997-5, Ac.5.31 cents in Sy.No.2691-1, and Ac.1.34 cents in Sy.No.2663-5 of Sankavaram Village fields, Kalasapadu Mandal, YSR District had been assigned in favour of the petitioners. Since the date of assignment, the subject land is in possession and enjoyment of the petitioners, without interference from anyone, muchless, the respondents herein. The respondent No.4 having recognized the possession of the petitioners over the subject land, mutated the revenue records and the pattadar pass books and title deed had also been issued in favour of the petitioners. Basing on the same, the online revenue records were updated in favour of the petitioners. 5. While things stood thus, the third parties with an intention to evict the petitioners from the subject land and grab the same, seems to have approached the Respondent No.3. In turn, the respondent No.3 visited the subject land on 28.03.2025 without giving any prior notice to the petitioners and seems to have submitted a report to the Respondent No.2 alleging that ::4:: the subject land belongs to the Government and the petitioners encroached the same. Further, the Respondent No.2 seems to have directed the Respondent No.3 to take possession of the subject land immediately and the same was published in the daily news paper. Aggrieved by the highhanded action of the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 in trying to take the possession of the subject land from the petitioners without adhering to the procedure contemplated, the present Writ Petition is filed. 6. It is settled proposition of law that when the petitioners are in settled possession and enjoyment of the property, the respondents are not entitled to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners and such highhanded action of the respondents would amount to depriving the petitioners’ 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 petitioners’ possession is illegal, still, the petitioners are 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 petitioners are in settled possession and enjoyment of the property, they cannot be dispossessed, without following due process of law. Therefore, the 1 2004 (1) SCC 769 ::5:: respondents are directed not to dispossess the petitioners from their property, except by due process of law. 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 03.04.2025 krk ::6:: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENAKTESWARLU NIMMAGADDA 84 WRIT PETITION NO.8773 of 2025 03.04.2025 krk