APHC010314142025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 15969/2025 Between: 1. KASTHURI, W/O. LATE. KANAKAPPA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O. BALIA VILLAGE AND POST, RAMA KUPPAMMANDAL CHITTOOR DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP., BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CHITTOOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KUPPAM, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, RAMA KUPPAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. S PARINEETA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION No: 15969 of 2025 ORDER: The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following relief: “pleased to issue an appropriate Writ Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent Nos.3 and 4 in interfering with petitioner rights over the land in an extent of Ac.1.19 cents in Sy.No.172/3A, Ac.0.74 cents in Sy.No.172/3E and Ac.0.72 cents in Sy.No.128/3A of Balia revenue Village, Rama Kuppam Mandal, Chittoor District, belong to the petitioner without assigning any reason whatsoever without putting the petitioner on notice or following due process of law as arbitrary illegal colorable exercise of power and well established legal principles apart from being voilative of fundamental and Constitutional Rights guaranteed to the petitioner under Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent Nos.3 and 4 not to interfere with petitioner rights over the land in an extent of Ac.1.19 cents in Sy.No.172/3A, Ac.0.74 cents in Sy.No.172/3E and Ac.0.72 cents in Sy.No.128/3A of Balia revenue Village Rama Kuppam Mandal Chittoor District and pass…” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondents. 3. 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 interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property of the petitioner without following due process of law. 4. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Revenue submitted the written instructions issued by the Tahsildar, wherein the relevant portion of the said instructions is extracted hereunder: “In this connection, I submit that the Writ Petitioner is having land dispute with the Smt.Chinnathayamma, w/o late Kanakappa and she was filed ROR Appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kuppam vide Roc.A/21/2025 dated 16.06.2025 pertaining to the land an extent of Ac.1.19 cents in Sy.No.172/3A, Ac.0.74 cents in Sy.No.172/3E and Ac.0.72 cents in Sy.No.128/3A of Balla Revenue Village, Rama Kuppam Mandal, Chittoor Village of Ramakauppam. The ROR notice was served to the Writ Petitioner and the concerned but the ROR appeal is pending before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kuppam. I further submit that we have not disturbed/interfering with the Writ Petitioner land measuring an extent of Ac.1.19 cents in Sy.No.172/3A, Ac.0.4 cents in Sy.No.172/3E and Ac.0.72 cents in Sy.No.128/3A of Balla revenue village, Rama Kuppam Mandal, Chittoor and there is no alienation and land acquisition proposals are pending for the subject land.” 5. On perusal of the said instructions, it is evident that the respondents are not interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject land of the petitioner. He further submits that if at all the respondents intend to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject land of the petitioner, they would follow due process of law. 6. It is settled proposition of law that, when the petitioners are in settled possession and enjoyment of the subject property, the petitioners cannot be dispossessed, without following due process of law in view of the law declared by the Apex Court in “RameGowda (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 interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property of the petitioner, except by due process of law. 7. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission with the consent of both the counsel. No costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed. _____________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA Date: 01.07.2025 M K K 12004 (1) SCC 769 137 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION No: 15969 of 2025 Date: 01.07.2025 M K K