APHC010369512024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 18642/2024 Between: Kamireddy Kateswara Reddy ...PETITIONER AND The Union Of India and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. POTHAMSETTY JAYA PRAKASH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. S S VARMA (SC FOR NHAI) 3. G SAI NARAYANA RAO SC FOR CENTRAL. GOVT. The Court made the following: O R D E R: 1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, claiming the following relief: “To issue Writ of Mandamus declaring the highhanded action of Respondent No.3 contemplating raise of compound wall in a part of land of petitioner admeasuring Ac.022 cents out of extent of Ac.0-44 cents comprised in Sy.No.158-1B2C situated at Kakkalapalli Village, Anantapuram Urban Mandal, Anantapuram District, without issuing any proceedings under any statutory law as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, contrary to the provisions of National Highway Act, 1956 and consequently direct Respondent No.3 not to dispossess the petitioner from his land, and direct Respondent No.3 to remove the construction materials, including cement brick sheets and other building materials from petitioner land.” 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 dispossess the petitioner from his land, without following due process of law. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents, admitted that the petitioner is continuing in possession of his land and the respondents authorities would follow due process of law and requested to pass appropriate orders. 4. When the petitioner is in settled possession and enjoyment of the property, the respondents are not entitled to interfere with their possession and enjoyment of the petitioner and such highhanded action of the respondents would amount to depriving the petitioner’s violating 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’s 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 dispossess the petitioner from his property, except by due process of law. 5. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of, with the consent of both the counsel. No costs. 6. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed. _____________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA Date:24.01.2025 SP 1 2004 (1) SCC 769 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 18642/2024 Date:24.01.2025 SP