::1:: APHC010264962019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] WEDNESDAY,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 11982/2019 Between: 1. PASUPULETI SATYA RAO,, S/O NOOKALU @ NOOKA RAJU, AGED 49 YEARS, BUSINESS, D.NO 7-27, CHUKKAPALLI (V), CHEEDIKADA (M), VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, AMARAVATI. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, PANCHAYATH RAJ AND RURAL EMPLOYMENT, AMARAVATI. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 4. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICER, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 5. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, CHEEDIKADA MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 6. CHUKKAPALLE GRAM PANCHAYAT, REP. BY PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, CHUKKAPALLE VILLAGE, CHEEDIKADA MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 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 Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction, declaring the action of respondents especially respondents 5 and 6 in trying to dispossess the petitioner from house site bearing D.No7-27 situated at Chukkapalli (V), Cheedikada (M), Visakhapatnam District as illegal, unjust, in violation of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents herein not to dispossess the petitioner from the above house site bearing D.No7-27 situated at Chukkapalli (V), Cheedikada (M), Visakhapatnam District and to pass……” 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj appearing for the respondent No.3 and Sri Y.Koteswara rao, the learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents Nos.5 and 6. 3. The case of the petitioner is that, an extent of Ac.0.04 cents in Sy.No.108 was allotted to him by way of a resolution dated 28.11.2017, passed by the Gram Panchayat, which recognized his long-standing possession of the subject property. Pursuant to the said resolution, the Tahsildar issued proceedings dated 04.05.2019, acknowledging that the petitioner had been in possession and 3 enjoyment of the subject property for the past 30 years, and further stated that it is an unobjectionable land. Therefore, the said allotment does not require any claim of adverse possession. However, despite the allotment of the subject property in favour of the petitioner through a resolution dated 28.11.2017 passed by the Gram Panchayat, and its subsequent confirmation by the Tahsildar, the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 are trying to dispossess the petitioner from the subject house without following the due procedure as contemplated under law. Hence, the present writ petition. 4. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 5 and 6 submits that, since the allotment was made by the Gram Panchayat in favour of the petitioner by way of a resolution dated 28.11.2017, the respondents would follow the due process of law as contemplated under the Act, if the respondents intend to evict the petitioner from the subject property. 5. 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 4 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 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. 6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for respondent No.3, and the learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 5 and 6, and on perusal of the material available on record, this Court is of the considered view that the present writ petition can be disposed of by directing respondent Nos. 5 and 6 not to interfere with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner and if the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 intend to take any action against the subject property of the petitioner, they shall follow the due procedure as contemplated with reference to the resolution dated 1 2004 (1) SCC 769 5 28.11.2017 passed by the Gram Panchayat in favour of the petitioner and by duly observing the principles of natural justice. 7. With the above direction, writ petition is disposed of. No costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications if any pending, shall stand closed. _____________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA 13.08.2025 klk 6 168 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENAKTESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO.11982 of 2025 13.08.2025 klk