APHC010284522025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] TUESDAY ,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 14322/2025 Between: P Manohar Reddy and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. KANDERI CHETHAN 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: 14322/2025 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 impugned action of the Respondent No.5 in interfering with the petitioners’ peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property admeasuring an extent of Ac.0.51 cents in Sy.No.247/8A and an extent of Ac.0.93 cents in Sy.No.247/8B of Komaragunta Village, Vedurukuppam Mandal, Chittoor District as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and being violative of articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and in violation of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the petitioners’ peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property situated in an extent of Ac.0.51 cents in Sy.No.247/8A and an extent of Ac.0.93 cents in Sy.No.247/8B of Komaragunta Village, Vedurukuppam Mandal, Chittoor District and pass such other order.” 2. During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners, without touching the merits of the case, requested this Court to issue a direction to the respondents not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners’ subject property, without following due process of law. 3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue submits that, if the petitioners are in possession of the subject property, the respondents would follow due process of law. 3 4. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents, it is observed that when the petitioners are in settled possession and enjoyment of the subject property, they 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 petitioners are in possession of the subject property, the respondents are directed not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners’ 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. ________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 1177..0066..22002255 TTPPSS 1 2004 (1) SCC 769 4 99 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO:14322 of 2025 1177..0066..22002255 TTPPSS