APHC010324692025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] FRIDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 16259/2025 Between: 1. Y.RAMA MOHAN RAO,, S/O LATE JAGANNADHA RAO, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, R/O HOUSE NO.7, DOMUS, THUMKUNTA, SHAMIRPET MANDAL, HYDERABAD-500078. ...PETITIONER AND 1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT AT VISAKHAPATNAM. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, PENDURTHI MANDAL, PENDURTHI, VISAKHAPATNAM 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 issue an appropriate writ or any other order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents, more particularly the 3rd respondent, in 2 trying to acquire the land bearing plot No.368 in Sy.Nos.48/2A and 48/2C situated in Purushothapuram Village, Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, without following due process of law as illegal, violation of principles of natural justice, violative of Articles 14, 300-A of the Constitution of India and Act 30 of 2013 and consequently direct the 3rd respondent not to disposes the petitioner from the above plot and acquire the said land without following due process of law 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 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 3 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 04.07.2025 kkllkk 1 2004 (1) SCC 769 4 260 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 16259 of 2025 04.07.2025 kkllkk 5