APHC010342522025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] WEDNESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 17109/2025 Between: 1. PANCHAGNULA SRINIVASA RAO,, S/O SUBBA RAO AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/O D.NO.29-552, RAMALAYAM STREET, VINUKONDA, PALNADU DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALNADU DISTRICT AT NARASARAOPETA. 3. THE TAHASILDAR, VINUKONDA MANDAL, VINUKONDA, PALNADU DISTRICT. 4. VINUKONDA MUNICIPALITY, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER, VINUKONDA, PALNADU DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased tomay be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 3 and 4 and their officials, in threatening to demolish the 2 petitioners building bearing door Nos.28-230, 231, 232, Assessment No. 1131 011372, Plot No.37 in D.No.367/1 situated on the northern side of Narasaraopet - Kurnool Road, in Vinukonda Town, Palnadu District, without following due process of law as illegal, arbitrary, violation of principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and without initiating the procedure as contemplated under the provisions of the A.P.Land Encroachment Act or the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 and consequently direct the respondents 2 and 3 not to demolish the petitioners above building and not to dispossess him therefrom without following the due process of law and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to direct the respondents 3 and 4 not to demolish the petitioner’s building bearing door Nos.28-230, 231, 232, Assessment No.1131011372, Plot No.37 in D.No.367/1 situated on the northern side of Narasaraopet - Kurnool Road, in Vinukonda Town, Palnadu District, pending disposal of the writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KOCHIRI RAJA SHEKAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: 3 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 17109 of 2025 ORDER: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 3 and 4 and their officials in threatening to demolish the petitioner’s building bearing door Nos.28-230, 231, 232, Assessment No.1131011372, Plot No.37 in D.No.367/1 situated on the Northern side of Narasaraopet-Kurnool Road, in Vinukonda Town, Palnadu District without following due process of law as illegal, arbitrary, violation of principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and without initiating the procedure as contemplated under the provisions of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act or the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 and consequently direct the respondents 2 and 3 not to demolish the petitioner’s above building and not to dispossess him therefrom without following the due process of law 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 interfere with the petitioner’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property without following due process of law. 3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and Ms.Sireesharani Vallabhaneni, learned Standing Counsel for the 4th respondent submit that, if the petitioner is in possession of the subject property, the respondents would follow due process of law. 4 4. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms.Sireesharani Vallabhaneni, learned Standing Counsel for the 4th respondent and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, it is observed that if 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 interfere with the petitioner’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property, except by 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 applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 0099..0077..22002255 ssjj 1 2004 (1) SCC 769 5 80 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO:17109 of 2025 09.07.2025 ssjj