k 4 - [ 3329 ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) O Vs. 7^ WEDNESDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE 'a: 5> Cf hii ^ PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 12648 OF 2025 ^ Between: K.Munilakshmamma, W/o. K.Gopal Reddy, Resident of D.No.3-14 KottaNennuru Village, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, Tirupathi District. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi Village, Amaravathi. 2. The District Collector, Timpathi District, Timpathi 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Timpathi District, Timpathi. 4. The Tahsildha,, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, Timpathi District. 5. The Village Revenue Officer, Nennum Village, Timpathi District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ more particularly in the form of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in trying to dispossess us from the lands under our possession upto an extent of Ac.0.74 cents in Sy.No. 55/12, Ac.0.73 cents in Sy.No. 55/13, Ac.0.84 cents in Sy.No. 55/14, Ac.0.93 cents in Sy.No. 55/15 of Nennuru village, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, Tirupathi District (previously Chittoor District), without initiating any resumption proceedings is as per se illegal, arbitrary, against the principles of natural justice, without power of authority and opposed to the Articles 19,21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and to consequentially direct the respondents to follow due process of law. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession of the petitioner in her lands upto an extent of Ac.0.74 cents in Sy.No. 55/12, Ac.0.73 cents in Sy.No. 55/13, Ac.0.84 cents in Sy.No. 5 5/14, Ac.0.93 cents in Sy.No. 55/15 ofNennuru village, Ramachandrapuram Manndal, Tirupathi District (previously Chittoor District). Counsel for the Petltioner(s):SRI. Counsel for the Petltioner(s):SRI. VMR LEGAL Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE^"^^ The Court made the following: APHC010253782025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] WEDNESDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 12648/2025 Between: K.munilakshmamma, ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.VMR LEGAL Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: 2 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 12648/2025 ORDER: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India seeking the following reliefs:- “to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in trying to dispossess the petitoner from the lands under petitoner’s possession upto an extent of Ac. 0.74 cents in Sy. No.55/12, Ac.0.73 cents in Sy. No. 55/13, Ac. 0.84 cents in Sy.No. 55/14, Ac. 0.93 cents in Sy. No. 55/15 of Nennuru Village, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, TirupathI District previously Chittoor District without initiating any resumption proceedings is as per se illegal, arbitrary, against the principles of natural justice, without power of authority and opposed to the Articles 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and to consequentially direct the respondents to follow due process of law and pass such other order. ” 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 interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner’s subject property f without following due process of law. 3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue submits that, if the petitioner is in possession of the subject property, the respondents would follow due process of law. 4. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for 3 the respondents, it is observed that when the petitioner is in settled possession and enjoyment of the subject property, she cannot be dispossessed, without following due process of law 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.^”. Therefore, if the petitioner is in possession of the subject property, the respondents are directed not to interfere with the petitioner’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property, except by following due process of law. 5. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel miscellaneous application, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ■2004(1) see 769 Sd/- J SAROJA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SEeTION OFFieER //TRUE COPYII To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue,State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi Village, Amaravathi.[By Special Messenger] 2. The District Collector, Tirupati District, Tirupati 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupati District, Tirupati. 4. The Tahsildha, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, Tirupati District. 5. The Village Revenue Officer, Nennum Village, Tirupati District. 6. One CC to SRI VMR LEGAL Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 8. Three CD Copies HIGH COURT DATED:07/05/2025 ORDER ’'^0 3 JUL 2025^ ^^sQurrent SectiopX^ o Co WP.No.12648 of 2025 THE WRIT PETITION IS DISPOSED OF WITHOUT COSTS