Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 15129 (AP)

SUBBAGAARI VANISREE v. The State of Andhra Pradesh,

WP/9686/2025 · 2025-04-10

Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

::1:: APHC010191432025 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: 9686/2025 Between: Subbagaari Vanisree and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. NARASIMHA REDDY. G . L Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE ::2:: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 9686/2025 This Court made the following ORDER: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “..to issue an appropriate Writ, or Direction especially one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 4th respondent in trying to dispossess the petitioners from their respective plot Nos.1 to 15 measuring an extent of Ac.0.03 cents in Sy.No.496/4 situated in Avilala Village, Tirupathi Rural Mandal, Tirupathi District without following the due process of law as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere and dispossess the petitioners from their respective plot Nos.1 to 15 measuring an extent of Ac.0.03 cents in Sy.No.496/4 situated in Avilala Village, Tirupathi Rural Mandal, Tirupathi 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 lands, without following due process of law. 3. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue, admitted that the petitioners are continuing in possession of the subject property and the ::3:: respondents authorities would follow due process of law and requested to pass appropriate orders. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners herein belongs to different communities and taking into consideration of their social status and economic conditions the authorities issued pattas in favour of the petitioners on 01.05.2004 and each patta consists of Ac.0.03 cents of land. At the time of granting patta Government announced a scheme that the financial aid would be given to all the allottees. There was a condition stipulated in the Patta that all the allottees should construct the Pucca houses within stipulated time. In the absence of financial aid from the Government, the petitioners unable to construct pucca houses as on today. 5. While things stood thus, on 08.04.2025 the 4th respondent staff came to petitioners’ plots and directed the petitioners to vacate the said premises and further directed the petitioners that they will come again and dispossess the petitioners. In view of the above there is an eminent threat of dispossession to the Petitioners. Hence the writ petition. 6. When the petitioners are in settled possession and enjoyment of the property, the respondents are not entitled to interfere with the possession ::4:: 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 these 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 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. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA Dt:10.04.2025 krk 1 2004 (1) SCC 769 ::5:: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA 44 WRIT PETITION NO: 9686/2025 Dt: 10.04.2025