IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH::AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 13246 OF 2025 Between: Katwal Abu Bakar, S/o. Kadhar Basha, Aged 44 years, Occ. Business, R/o. D.No.60/57, Gandhi Bazar, Rayachoty, Annamayya District. ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary to the Government Revenue Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. The District Collector, Annamayya District at Rayachoty. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Rayachoty Revenue Division, Rayachoty Annamayya District. 4. The Tahsildar, Rayachoty Mandal, Annamayya District. ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of respondents, more particularly 2nd respondent in interfering with petitioner's possession and enjoyment of petitioner landed property admeasuring an extent of Ac.2.27 cents covered by S.No.997 situated at Rayachoty Village and Mandal, Annamayya District, thereby directing 4th respondent to evict us there from, as illegal, irregular, irrational, without any authority or sanction of law and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and % consequently direct the respondents not to interfere in any manner with his possession over his said landed property lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 15T CPC 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 in any manner with petitioners possession and enjoyment over his landed property admeasuring an extent of Ac.2.27 cents covered by S.No.997 situated at Rayachoty Village and Mandal, Annamayya District, pending disposal of main Writ Petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI NIMMAGADDA REVATHI Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 4: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: Order APHC010262772025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] FRIDAY ,THE NINTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 13246/2025 Between: ...PETITIONER Katwal Abu Bakar AND ...RESPONDENT{S) The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner; 1.NIMMAGADDA REVATHI Counsel for the Respondent(S); 1.GP FOR REVENUE This Court made the followingORDER: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiaseeking 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, more particularly 2nd respondent in interfering with petitioner's possession and enjoyment of petitioner landed property admeasuring an extent of Ac.2.27 cents covered by S.No.997 situated at Rayachoty Village and Mandal, Annamayya District, thereby directing 4th respondent to evict us therefrom, as illegal, irregular, irrational, without any authority or sanction of law and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere in any manner with his possession over his said landed property and pass...” Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant 2. Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents. The case of the petitioner is that he is the absolute owner and possessor 3. of the land measuring Ac.2.27 cents, covered by Survey No. 997, situated at Rayachoty Village and Mandal, Annamayya District. The aforementioned property originally belongs to the petitioner's mother, who was in possession and enjoyment of the same until her death.After her demise, the subject property was partitioned among the petitioner and his brothers. Thereafter, the petitioner's brothers executed a Gift Settlement Deed dated 22.01.2025 in favour of the petitioner in respect of the subject property. Ever since, the petitioner has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the said property.The petitioner, along with his brothers, had earlier, filed Writ Petition 13861 of 2019 seeking consideration of various applications submitted for the list of prohibited properties. This Hon’ble Court No. deletion of their land from had directed the respondents to dispose of those applications in accordance with law While matters stood thus, the respondent authorities are now trying to the subject property. Hence, the present Writ dispossess the petitioner from Petition is filed. , The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 2"^^ respondents 4. dispossess the petitioner from the subject following due process of along with his staff are trying to property of the petitioner without issuing any notice or law, which is contrary to the provisions under the Right To Fair Compensation Rehabilitation And Resettlement Act, And Transparency In Land Acquisition 2013. Hence the writ petition. Government Pleader for Respondents, admitted that the petitioner isin continuous possession of subject land and the would follow due process of law and requested to pass The Learned Assistant 5. respondents authorities appropriate order in accordance with law that when the petitioner is in settled It is settled proposition of law enjoyment of the property, the respondents are not entitled to 6. possession and interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner and such highhanded action of the respondents petitioner’s Constitution of India would amount to depriving the under Article 300-A of the constitutional right guaranteed ia 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 Gowda (dead) by LRs. v. M.Varadappa Naidu (Dead) by L.Rs.\ 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 subject property, except by due process of law subject to the possession of the subject property. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of, with the consent of both the counsel. No costs. 7. As a sequel, interlocutory applications if any pending, shall stand closed. 2004(1) see 769 Sd/- J. SAROJA assistant registrar //TRUE COPYII SEeTlON OFFICER 1. The Principal Secretary, State of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. The District Collector, Annamayya District at Rayachoty. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Rayachoty Revenue Division, Rayachoty Annamayya District. 4. The Tahsildar, Rayachoty Mandal, Annamayya District. 5. One CC to SRI NIMMAGADDA REVATHI Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 7. Three CD Copies To, gsg HIGH COURT DATED: 09/05/2025 ORDER WP.No.13246 of 2025 DISPOSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS