::1:: APHC010191802025 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: 9682/2025 Between: N Mymoon ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V R REDDY KOVVURI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENAKTESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION No.9682 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 an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No.4in undertaking to demolish and dispossess the petitioner from the house bearing Door No.4-160 situated in an extent of Ac.0.02 cents in Sy.No.45/2 of Guravarajupalle Village, Renigunta Mandal, Tirupathi District, at the behest of Respondent No.5, without putting notice and without following due process of law as arbitrary, illegal, contrary to the well-established legal principles apart from being violative of the fundamental and Constitutional Rights guaranteed to the petitioner under Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondent No.4 not to demolish and dispossess from the house bearing Door No.4-160 situated in an extent of Ac.0.02 cents in Sy.No.45/2 of Guravarajupalle Village, Renigunta Mandal, Tirupathi District, belongs to the Petitioner 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 land in an extent of Ac.0.02 cents in Sy.No.45/2 of Guravarajupalle Village, Renigunta Mandal, Tirupathi District had been assigned in favour of the Petitioner vide House Site Patta dated 10.02.2012. Since the date of assignment, the subject property is in petitioner’s possession and enjoyment without interference from anyone, much less the Respondents herein. Petitioner constructed asbestos sheet house in the subject land and residing therein. Further, the said house was allotted Door No.4-160. 5. While things stood thus, the Respondent No.5 with an intent to grab the subject land instituted O.S.No.63 of 2025 on the file of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge (Junior Division), Tirupathi against the Petitioner herein and petitioner’s husband seeking to declare that the Respondent No.5 got right, title over the plaint schedule property and consequently direct the petitioner to deliver the possession of the plaint schedule property to the Respondent 4 No.5 and the same is pending adjudication. Whereas, the Respondent No.5 who failed to obtain interim orders in O.S.No.63 of 2025 seems to have approached the Respondent No.4. In turn, the Respondent No.4 who is hand in glove with the Respondent No.5 came to the subject land on 09.04.2025 along with JCB and demolished pre-cast slab compound wall that too without adhering to due process of law. But they left the premises after raising hue and cry and also after intervention of the locals, threatening that they would come along with police and warned the Petitioner not to question their actions and further threatened the petitioner to vacate the subject land. 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 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 5 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. Learned counsel for Respondents specifically directed to inform the orders of this Court to Respondent No.4. 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 166 WRIT PETITION No.9682 of 2025 10.04.2025 krk