::1:: APHC010459292025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] WEDNESDAY,THE THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 23322/2025 Between: 1. KILADI BABJI, , S/O. KRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.10-62, SEETAMPETA, DHARMAVARAM VILLAGE, PRATHIPADU MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-533430. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYAT 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 ROADS AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT, REP BY ITS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, AT KAKINADA, KAKINADA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KAKINADA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 5. THE TAHSILDAR, PRATHIPADU MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 6. THE DHARMAVARAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT IS REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DHARMAVARAM VILLAGE, PRATHIPADU MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 7. GORLA VEERA SAMBAMURTHY, S/O. NOT KNOWN, R/O. DHARMAVARAM VILLAGE PRATHIPADU MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 The Court made the following ORDER: 1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “to issue a Writ Order or direction particularly, one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent authorities in trying to demolish the petitioners house situated in survey No. 442/5, admeasuring an extent of 126 Square yards bearing door no.2-56, located at Dharmavaram Village, Prathipadu Mandal, Kakinada District, Andhra Pradesh with the help of Respondent No.7, without following the procedure established by law. This act is illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and also violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, as well as contrary to the judgment laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rame Gowda v. M. Varadappa Naidu (2004) 1 SCC 769 and consequently directs the respondents not to demolish the subject property situated in survey No. 442/5, admeasuring an extent of 126 Square yards bearing door no.2-56, located at Dharmavaram Village, Prathipadu Mandal, Kakinada District, Andhra Pradesh except the due process of law and to pass....” 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 demolish/not to interference with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner’s subject property, without following due process of law. 3 3. 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. 4. 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 petitioner and such highhanded action of the respondents would amount to depriving the petitioner’s 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 interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner’s subject 1 2004 (1) SCC 769 4 property. However, if they intend to take any action against subject property of the petitioner, they shall follow due procedure as contemplated under the law. 5. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications if any pending, shall stand closed. _____________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA 03.09.2025 klk 5 121 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENAKTESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO.23322 of 2025 03.09.2025 klk