1 APHC010191242025 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: 9656/2025 Between: Shaik Dastagiri ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. MD SALEEM Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENAKTESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION No,9656 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 that the action of the Respondent No.2 and their subordinate officer herein in taking steps to evict/dispossess the Petitioner from his Ancestral Agricultural land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.0.75 cents in Sy.No.16-1 of Kandriga Village, Gurramkonda Mandal, Annamayya District (erstwhile Chittoor District) at the behest and influence of the Respondent Nos.3 and 4 without following the procedure under law as wholly arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction and void and violated the principles of natural justice and affected petitioner’s rights guaranteed under article 14, 15, 19(1)(g), 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents not to interfere/not take any coercive steps with petitioner’s possession and enjoyment of Ancestral Agricultural land admeasuring to an extent of Ac. 0.75 cents in Sy.No.16-1 of Kandirga Village, Gurramkonda Mandal, Annamayya District and to 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 3 respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from his land, without following due process of law. 3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, admitted that the petitioner is 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 Petitioner submits that the petitioner is absolute owner and possessor of the ancestral agricultural lands in Sy.No.503/7 to an extent of Ac.0.84 cents and in Sy.No.16-1 to an extent of Ac.0.75 cents of Kandriga Village, Gurramkonda Mandal, Annamayya District (erstwhile Chittoor District). Originally these lands belongs to one Shaik Modini Bee, W/o. Shaik Mahabood Sab and the said Shaik Modini Bee executed a settlement deed in favour of the Petitioner on 08.04.2015. Since the date of acquisition through the settlement deed the petitioner has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject land without any interruption from anybody including the Respondents herein. Petitioner also requested the Respondents herein to include his name in all revenue records i.e., 1B-Namoona and village books, but so far not included, still the records are continuing in the name of said Shaik Modini Bee only. 4 5. While things stood thus, on 07.04.2025 the 2nd respondent and their subordinate officers, who are nothing to do with the petitioner’s land came to the subject land in Sy.No.16-1 an extent of Ac.0.75 cents of Kandriga Village, Gurramkonda Mandal, Annamayya District with the active influence of the Respondent Nos.3 and 4, tried to evict the Petitioner from the land without following procedure and without giving prior notice / information, trying to change the physical features of the subject lands. When petitioner and his family members resisted the highhanded action of the Respondents, the 2nd respondent and their subordinate officers informed that within a one week, they would come again with police and take possession of the land. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents, the present Writ Petition is filed. 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 that this petitioner’s 5 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, he cannot be dispossessed, without following due process of law. Therefore, the respondents are directed not to dispossess the petitioner from his 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 10.04.2025 krk 1 2004 (1) SCC 769 6 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENAKTESWARLU NIMMAGADDA 164 WRIT PETITION NO.9656 of 2025 10.04.2025 krk