APHC010348342025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] MONDAY,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 17590/2025 Between: 1. KEELU SATYANARAYANA,, S/O. KEELU RAYUDU, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.1- 24, LINGAMPARTHI VILLAGE, YELESWARAM MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYATHI RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT OFFICE, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, , KAKINADA, KAKINADA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KAKINADA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, YELESWARAM MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 5. YERRAVARAM GRAM PANCHAYAT, REP BY ITS SECRETARY, YERRAVARAM VILLAGE, YELESWARAM MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 6. KESAMSETTI LALITHA, W/O. PEDDA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O. YERRAVARAM VILLAGE, YELESWARAM MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...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 topleased to issue a Writ Order or direction particularly, one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent Nos. 5, action of Respondent No.5, who is attempting to dispossess the petitioner from his house site situated at Door No. 4-234, in Survey No. 21-1B, admeasuring an extent of 117.33 square yards (equivalent to 98.55 square meters), located in Yerravaram Village Panchayat, Yeleswaram Mandal, Kakinada District, Andhra Pradesh, without following the due process of law. Such action is illegal, arbitrary, and violative of the principles of natural justice, and infringes upon the petitioner's fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. It also violates the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rame Gowda v. M. Varadappa Naidu (2004) 1 SCC 769 and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the petitioner's peaceful possession of the subject property situated in Door No. 4-234 and Survey. No.21-1B, admeasuring to an extent of 117.33 square yards (equivalent to 98.55 square meters), located at Yerravaram Village Panchayat, Yeleswaram Mandal, Kakinada District, Andhra Pradesh, except due process of law 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 pleased to direct the respondents not to interfere with the petitioner's peaceful possession of the subject property of the petitioner situated in Door No.4-234andSurvey. N0.21-1B, admeasuring to an extent of 117.33 square yards (equivalent to 98.55 square meters), located at Yerravaram Village Panchayat, Yeleswaram Mandal, Kakinada District, Andhra Pradesh except due process of law and pass order or orders in accordance with law pending disposal of the above writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. MALISETTI VENKATA SIVA TEJA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 2. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION No.17590 OF 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 particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No.5, who is attempting to dispossess the petitioner from his house site situated at Door No.4-234 in Survey No.21-1B admeasuring an extent of 117.33 square yards (equivalent to 98.55 square meters) located in Yerravaram Village Panchayat, Yeleswaram Mandal, Kakinada District, Andhra Pradesh without following the due process of law. Such action is illegal, arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice and infringes upon the petitioner’s fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India It also violates the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rame Gowda v. M.Varadappa Naidu (2004) 1 SCC 769 and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the petitioners peaceful possession of the subject property situated in Door No.4-234 in Survey No.21-1B admeasuring an extent of 117.33 square yards (equivalent to 98.55 square meters) located in Yerravaram Village Panchayat, Yeleswaram Mandal, Kakinada District, Andhra Pradesh, except due process of law and to pass such other order or orders...” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Sri Y.Koteswara Rao, learned Standing Counsel for Panchayat Raj for respondent No.5. 3. The claim of the petitioner herein is that the petitioner herein is the absolute owner and possessor of the house site situated at Door No.4-234 in Survey No.21-1B admeasuring an extent of 117.33 square yards (equivalent to 98.55 square meters) located in Yerravaram Village Panchayat, Yeleswaram Mandal, Kakinada District, Andhra Pradesh, having acquired the said property through a registered settlement deed dated 25.04.2024. whereas, the vendor of the petitioner also acquired the subject property through a registered sale deed dated 30.07.2011. Since the date of acquisition, the petitioner and his predecessors have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject house property. While so, the respondent authorities without issuing any notice and without observing principles of natural justice are interfering and dispossessing the petitioner from the subject property on the guise of complaint made by respondent No.6. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents in interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property of the petitioner without following due process of law, the petitioner herein filed the present writ petition. 4. On the other hand, Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.5 furnished written instructions dated 01.07.2025, wherein, it is stated that admittedly, the subject house property was acquired by the petitioner and his vendor through registered title deeds only. It is further stated that there are disputes between the petitioner and the respondent No.6 regarding the same subject property, for which, respondent No.5 suggested by issuing this endorsement to approach the Court of law to resolve the disputes between the petitioner and the respondent No.6. Except the said suggestion, the 5th respondent is not taking any steps for demolition or interfering with the possession of the property of the petitioner. 5. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the Gram Panchayat and on perusal of the material placed on record, this Court is of the considered view that the present writ petition can be disposed of, directing the respondents authorities, more particularly, respondent No.5 not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject house property and not to demolish the structure of the petitioner, except by following due process of law. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition shall stand closed. _________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 14.07.2025 BSP 143 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION No.17590 of 2025 14.07.2025 BSP