APHC010180162025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 9187/2025 Between: Vennapoosa Prabhakar Reddy ...PETITIONER AND The State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SINGAMSETTY V.M. SANKAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP for Revenue The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 9187/2025 O R D E R: 1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to declare the action of the respondents in trying to dispossess the petitioner from the land situated in Sy.No.451, 457, 481, 464 etc., in Plot no.6A admeasuring to an extent of 360 Sq.Yards situated in Nernoor Village, Chejerla Mandal, SPSR Nellore District, without issuing any notice or following any due process of law as being illegal, arbitrary, sans, jurisdiction, violative to the principles of natural justice, contrary to the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Assigned Land (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (“the Act”) and Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently, direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from his land situated in Sy.No.451, 457, 481, 464 etc., in 6A Plot admeasuring to an extent of 360 Sq.Yards situated in Nernoor Village, Chejerla Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondents. 3. 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 peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property of the petitioner without following due process of law. 4. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondents submits that if the respondents intend to interfere with the subject property of the petitioner, they would follow due process of law. 5. It is settled proposition of law that, when the petitioner is in settled possession and enjoyment of the property, the petitioner 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 peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property of the petitioner, except by due process of law, subject to issuance of patta in favour of the petitioner. 6. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission with the consent of both the counsel. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. _________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 08.04.2025 kbs 12004 (1) SCC 769 135 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA W.P.No.9187 of 2025 Dt: 08.04.2025 kbs