::1:: APHC010224122025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] MONDAY ,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 11112/2025 Between: Lalam Appala Naidu ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. ANANDA KUMAR VEJANDLA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENAKTESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO.11112 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 the action of respondents, particularly the respondents 4 and 5 in insisting petitioner to vacate from his landed properties admeasuring an extent of Ac.6.63 cents covered by Sy.Nos.332-1B, 333-1B and 333-2 situated in Chatametta Revenue Village of Rambilli Mandal in Anakapalli District, for the purpose of formation of road to the 5th respondent through petitioner’s lands without issuing any notice, without initiating proceedings under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, as illegal, irregular, irrational, violative of principles of natural justice and offends Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with petitioner’s peaceful possession and enjoyment over the said lands and to consider his representations for the grant of regular assignment patta under Standing Orders 15 and 21 of the Andhra Pradesh Board of Revenue Standing Orders and pass..” 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and Smt. Santhi Chandra, learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No.5 3 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 dispossess the petitioner from his land, without following due process of law. 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Respondents, admitted that the petitioner is continuing the possession of subject land and the respondents authorities would follow due process of law and requested to pass appropriate orders. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the petitioner is absolute owner and possessor of the land of Ac.3.76 cents in Sy.No.332-1B; Ac.0.87 cents in Sy.No.333-1B and Ac.2.00 cents in Sy.No.333-2 situated at Chatametta Revenue Village of Rambilli Mandal in Anakapalli District having succeeded the same from petitioner’s forefathers and ancestors as their legal heirs. The revenue authorities recognized petitioner’s longstanding possession by mutating petitioner’s name and his predecessors’ names in the 1421 Fasli and 4C revenue records of Chatametta Village. The petitioner repeatedly requested the respondents, particularly the 4th respondent, to grant a regular assignment patta under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Board of Revenue Standing Orders 4 15 and 21, citing petitioner’s longstanding possession. However, the respondents have consistently deferred petitioner’s request without providing any justifiable reasons. 6. While things stood thus, in the last three weeks, subordinates of Respondents 4 and 5 have been visiting petitioner’s lands, conducting surveys, and marking boundaries without petitioner’s consent or prior notice. Upon enquiry, respondents orally informed the petitioner that these actions were pursuant to instructions from respondents 4 and 5 for acquiring petitioner’s lands to form a 12- meter wide approach road for the 5th respondent. Hence the writ petition. 7. It is settled proposition of law that when the petitioner is in settled 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 5 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. 8. 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 28.04.2025 NOTE: Issue CC by 01.05.2025 (B/o) krk 1 2004 (1) SCC 769 6 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENAKTESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO.1112 of 2025 28.04.2025 NOTE: Issue CC by 01.05.2025 (B/o) krk