APHC010178172025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] THURSDAY ,THE TENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 9177/2025 Between: Komatipalli Chandu ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. PAPUDIPPU SASHIDAR REDDY 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: 9177/2025 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 highhanded action of the respondent Nos.3 to 5 in trying to dispossess the petitioner from the petitioner’s land situated in an extent of Ac.1.75 cents in Sy.No.51-5 situated in Kurapam Village and Mandal, Parvathipuram Manyam District without issuing any notice, without conducting any enquiry and without passing any order as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, malafide and against the principles of natural justice besides violation of Article 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent Nos.3 to 5 not to dispossess the petitioner from his land of an extent of Ac.1.75 cents in Sy.No.51-5 situated in Kurapam Village and Mandal, Parvathipuram Manyam 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 dispossess the petitioner from the subject property 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. 4. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government 3 Pleader for the respondents, it is observed that when the petitioner is in settled possession and enjoyment of the subject property, he 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 dispossess the petitioner from the subject property, except by following 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 10.04.2025 TTPPSS 1 2004 (1) SCC 769 4 210 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO:9177 of 2025 10.04.2025 TTPPSS