Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 21846 (AP)

Shaik Taharunnisa v. The State of Andhra Pradesh,

WP/15492/2025 · 2025-06-26

Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010308412025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 15492/2025 Between: 1. SHAIK TAHARUNNISA, W/O. KHALEEL, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, BHANUMUKKALA VILLAGE, BANAGANAPALLE MANDAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT. ERSTWHILE KURNOOL DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPLE SECRETARY, REVENUE/STAMP AND REGISTRATION DEPT., A.P. SECRETARIAT, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, NANDYAL DISTRICT. ERSTWHILE KURNOOL DISTRICT. 3. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR, YSR DISTRICT, KADAPA, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. 4. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR, STAMPS AND REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT, NANDYAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT. 5. THE DISTRICT GRAM PANCHAYAT OFFICER, NANDYAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT. 6. THE TAHSILDAR, BANAGANAPALLE MANDAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT. 7. THE JOINT SUB REGISTRAR, JAMMALAMADUGU, JAMMALAMADUGU MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. 8. THE SUB REGISTRAR, BANAGANAPALLE MANDAL, NANDYAL 2 DISTRICT. 9. THE BANAGANAPALLE GRAM PANCHAYAT, REP. BY ITS PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, BANAGANAPALLE VILLAGE, BANAGANAPALLE MANDAL NANDYAL DISTRICT. ERSTWHILE KURNOOL 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:- “to may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in Notice -2 Memo No. G1/283/2025 dated 26.05.2025 under the provisions of Registration Act, 1908 and notice dated 17-02-2025 of the 9 respondent as per the provisions of the Gram Panchayat Act 1994 as illegal, arbitrary and suffer lack of jurisdiction in violation of Article 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere the petitioner his land to an extent of 122.22 Sq. Yards in Sy.No.163/1 of Banaganapalli Village, Banaganapalle Mandal, Nandyal District erstwhile Kurnool District by suspending the dated 26-05-2025 in Memo No. G1/283/2025 issued by 3rd respondent and notice dated 17- 02-2025 issued by the 9th respondent and 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 3 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 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. 1 2004 (1) SCC 769 4 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 27.06.2025 kkllkk 5 95 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 15492 of 2025 27.06.2025 kkllkk 6