APHC010259582025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY ,THE EIGHTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU WRIT PETITION NO: Between: Nallandula Chandra Akhil, The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. MEKA RAHUL CHOWDARY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] THURSDAY ,THE EIGHTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 12954/2025 Nallandula Chandra Akhil, ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: MEKA RAHUL CHOWDARY Counsel for the Respondent(S): GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: [3329] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT(S) 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 12954/2025 ORDER: The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following relief: “ ... pleased to issue an order direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the the action of the 4th respondent in interfering with my peaceful possession and enjoyment over the land to an extent of 656.44 Sq yds in Sy No 18/1B of Tummalagunta Village Tirupati Rural Mandal Tirupati District without notice and without following due process of law and their action in threatening to demolish the tin roofed structures and dispossess me as illegal arbitrary highhanded and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the petitioners possession and enjoyment over the land to an extent of 656.44 Sq yds in Sy No 18/1B of Tummalagunta Village Tirupati Rural Mandal Tirupati District...” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondents. 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/ evict the petitioners from their respective property without following due process of law. 4. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue submits that, if the petitioners are in possession of the subject property, the 3 respondents would follow due process of law and requested to pass appropriate orders. 5. When the petitioners are in settled possession and enjoyment of the property, the petitioners 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.1”. Therefore, if the petitioner is in possession of the subject property, the respondents are directed not to evict/ dispossess the petitioners from their respective subject property, except by due process of law. 6. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission with the consent of both the counsel. No costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ______________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA Date:08.05.2025 KKV 1 2004 (1) SCC 769 4 70 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 12954/2025 Date:08.05.2025 KKV