1 APHC010301392025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] FRIDAY,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 14979/2025 Between: Pulapakala Veeraju and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. NALLANAGULA LALITHA SREE Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 2. GP FOR HOME 3. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: 2 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 14979/2025 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 Respondent Nos.4 to 6 in making efforts to dispossess the petitioners from their land of an extent of 0.9480 cents in Sy.No.120/2 L.P.No.870 situated at Mysannagudem, Jangareddygudem Mandal, Eluru District, Andhra Pradesh at the instance of the local politicians without following procedure established by the law as illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice and the act ofthe authorities is against the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of RAME GOWDA V/S. M.VARADAPPA NAIDU and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere into the peaceful possession over the petitioner’s lands extent 0.8480 cents in Sy.No.120/2 L.P.No.870 situated at Mysannagudem, Jangareddygudem Mandal, Eluru District, Andhra Pradesh except procedure established by the law...” 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development appearing for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are residents of Mysannagudem and they have encroached the subject property during the year 2000 for the purpose of cultivation as they are landless poor. The petitioners are cultivating the Cashew plantation and 3 Eucalyptus plantation over the land to an extent of Ac.4.00 cents in Sy.No.120/2 with respect to the 1st petitioner, a land to an extent of Ac.4.00 cents in Sy.No.120/2 with respect to the 2nd petitioner, a land to an extent of Ac.4.00 cents in Sy.no.120/2 with respect to the 3rd petitioner and a land to an extent of Ac.4.00 cents in Sy.No.120/2 with respect to the 4th petitioner situated at Mysannagudem, Jangareddygudem Mandal, Eluru District, Andhra Pradesh for their livelihood, in total an extent of Ac.16.00 cents. From the date of allotment of the patta in favour of the petitioners, the petitioners are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property. While so, Respondent Nos.4 to 6 are interfering with the possession of the petitioners over the subject land by saying that the petitioners encroached the Government land and threatening the petitioners to vacate the subject land. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the highhanded action of the respondents in trying to dispossess the petitioners from their land is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the law declared by the Apex Court in “Rame Gowda (dead) by L.Rs. v. M.Varadappa Naidu (Dead) by L.Rs. Hence, the present Writ Petition is filed. 4. Learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development submits that, if the petitioners are in possession of the subject property, the respondents would follow due process of law and requested to pass appropriate orders. 4 5. When the petitioners are in settled possession and enjoyment of the property, the petitioners 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 long standing possession of the subject property, the respondents are directed not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property of the petitioners, except by due process of law. 6. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission with the consent of both the counsel. No costs. As a sequel miscellaneous application, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 2255..0077..22002255 TTM M 1 2004 (1) SCC 769 5 43 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO:14979 of 2025 2255..0077..22002255 TTM M