APHC010286612025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] THURSDAY ,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 14507/2025 Between: 1. GORLA SRINIVASA RAO, S/O BHAVANNARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O PAPAYAPALEM VILLAGE, VETAPALEM MANDAL, BAPATLA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY IT'S PRINICIPLE SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARAIT BUILDING, NELAPADU, AMARAVATI. 2. THIS DISTRICT COLLECTOR, BAPATLA, BAPATLA DISTRICT. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, CHIRALA MANDAL, BAPATLA DISTRICT. 4. THAHASILDAR, VETAPALEM MANDAL, VETAPALEM, BAPATLA DISTRICT. 5. THE MANDAL SURVEYOR, VETAPALEM MANDAL, BAPATLA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): The Court made the following ORDER: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India seeking the following reliefs:- 2 “to issue a Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS to declare the action of the 4th and 5th Respondents in interfering with the possession of the petitioner land an extent of Ac. 1.92 cents in survey No. 159 of Kothapeta village, Vetapalem Mandal, Bapatla District though there was an order of attachment before judgement by the competent Civil Court in lA No.497 of 2015 in OS No. 105 of 2015 on the file of Family-cum-VIIIth Additional District Judge, Prakasam at Ongole is illegal, arbitrary, capricious and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300A Constitution of India. Consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner's land as there was an order of attachment and to pass 1. 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 the petitioner from his land, without following due process of law. 2. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Respondents, admitted that the petitioner is in continuous possession of subject land and the respondents’ authorities would follow due process of law and requested to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 3. 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 subject land of the petitioner and such highhanded action of the respondents would amount to depriving the petitioner constitutional right guaranteed under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, besides violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of 3 India. Even assuming for a moment that this petitioner 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. Therefore, the respondents are directed not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner’s subject property. However, if they intend to take any action against subject property of the petitioner, they shall follow the due procedure as contemplated under the law. 4. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. As a sequel miscellaneous application, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 19.06.2025 kkllkk 1 2004 (1) SCC 769 4 323 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 14507 of 2025 19.06.2025 kkllkk 5