APHC010291072025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] WEDNESDAY ,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 14435/2025 Between: A Prakash Reddy ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SUBBA RAO KORRAPATI 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: 14435/2025 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 action of the respondents in trying to dispossess the petitioner from the agricultural lands in Sy.No.1311/1 to an extent of Ac.0.96 Cts, in Sy.No.1311/3 to an extent of Ac.01.93 Cts and in Sy.No.1312/3 to an extent of Ac.00.59 Cts in Vinjam Village, Gangadhara Nellore Mandal, Chittoor District without issuing any notice, without assigning any reason and without following due process of law as arbitrary, illegal, for extraneous considerations and in violation of Article 14 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to dispossess/not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner’s agricultural lands in Sy.No.1311/1 to an extent of Ac.0.96 Cts, in Sy.No.1311/3 to an extent of Ac.01.93 Cts and in Sy.No.1312/3 to an extent of Ac.00.59 Cts in Vinjam Village, Gangadhara Nellore Mandal, Chittoor District and pass such other order.” 2. 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 and not to interfere with the petitioner’s subject property, without following due process of law. 3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue submits that, if the petitioner is 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 petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents, it is observed that when the petitioner is in settled possession and enjoyment of the subject property, he 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 dispossess and not to interfere with the petitioner’s 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 1188..0066..22002255 TTPPSS 1 2004 (1) SCC 769 4 34 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO:14435 of 2025 1188..0066..22002255 TTPPSS