::1:: APHC010191442025 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: 9674/2025 Between: N.nagamani, ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. GANTA EDIGA RAKESH GOUD Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENAKTESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION No.9674 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 more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondents herein in threatening and attempting to illegally and unauthorizedly acquire property in Sy.No.1451-2 to an extent of Ac.0.92 cents and Sy.No.1451-3 to an extent of Ac.0.91 cents situated at Kothacheruvu Village and Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District, without issuance of any proceedings as per the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and without payment of Compensation as being illegal, arbitrary, unjust, violative of principles of natural justice, violative of the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and resettlement Act, 2013 and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and Consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Petitioner in Sy.No.1451-2 to an extent of Ac.0.92 cents and Sy.No.1451-3 to an extent of Ac.0.91 cents situated at Kothacheruvu Village and Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District except by following the due procedure 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 respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from her property, without following due process of law. 3 3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, admitted that the petitioner is continuing in the possession of subject property and the respondents authorities would follow due process of law and requested to pass appropriate orders. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the petitioner is the pattadar and possessor of land in Sy.No.1451-2 to an extent of Ac.0.92 cents and Sy.No.1451-3 to an extent of Ac.0.91 cents situated at Kothacheruvu Village and Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District. The said lands were assigned in favour of the petitioner vide proceedings No. DAR.Dis.24/1409, dated 05.05.2007. Ever since the assignment, the petitioner is in continuous possession and enjoyment of the said lands. The petitioner was issued pattadar passbook vide bearing I.B.No.1910 of Kothacheruvu Village for the subject lands, and the petitioner has been raising crops by drawing water from bore-well. The subject lands were erroneously recorded in Webland Adangal under National Khata No.9976, treating the same as surplus Government land. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submits that the petitioner made representation requesting the correction of National Khata to regular Khata and to facilitate proper mutation of the land records in accordance with 4 Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Book Act, 1971 and Rules, 1989. The Tahsildar, Kothacheruvu, upon enquiry, has submitted a report dated 22.01.2025 to the Joint Collector confirming the assignment in favour of the petitioner and recommended mutation of the Webland entry by converting the National khata No.9976 into Regular Khata of the land in Sy.No.1451-2 to an extent of Ac.0.92 cents and Sy.No.1451-3 to an extent of Ac.0.91 cents situated at Kothacheruvu Village and Mandal. 5. While matter stood thus, on 28.03.2025, the Revenue Authorities attempted to interfere and dispossess the Petitioner from her lawful possession and enjoyment of the subject property and orally informed that the said land is being allotted to the village for the use as a burial ground. Hence the Writ Petition. 6. It is 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 300-A of the Constitution of India, besides violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Even assuming for a moment 5 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, she cannot be dispossessed, without following due process of law. Therefore, the respondents are directed not to dispossess the petitioner from her property, except by due process of law and further directed to consider the report of the 4th Respondent dated 22.01.2025 and also report of the 5th respondent dated 07.02.2025 before taking any action against the possession of the petitioner’s subject property. 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 10.04.2025 krk 1 2004 (1) SCC 769 6 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENAKTESWARLU NIMMAGADDA 156 WRIT PETITION No.9674 of 2025 10.04.2025 krk