::1:: APHC010473192025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] FRIDAY,THE TWELFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 24571/2025 Between: 1. GOTIWADA SANYASI, S/O.DEMUDU, AGED 60 YEARS, R/O.H.NO.1-7 SC COLONY, AMRUTHAPURAM VILLAGE, SABBAVARAM MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI (ERSTWHILE VISAKHAPATNAM) DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ANAKAPALLI (ERSTWHILE VISAKHAPATNAM) DISTRICT. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ANAKAPALLI, ANAKAPALLI (ERSTWHILE VISAKHAPATNAM) DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, ANAKAPALLI MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI (ERSTWHILE VISAKHAPATNAM) DISTRICT. ...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 an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the illegal and high handed action on the part of the respondents particularly the respondent in contemplating to dispossess the petitioner from his possession and enjoyment of the land situated in an extent of Ac.0.90 Cents covered by Survey No.283-2B of Amruthapuram Village, Sabbavaram Mandal, Anakapalli (erstwhile Visakhapatnam) District and in trying to demolish the existing structures therein, without issuing any notice, without conducting any enquiry and without passing any orders as illegal, arbitrary, malafide, against the statutory provisions, violation of Constitutional Guarantees besides violation of Principles of Natural Justice and to consequently direct the 3rd respondents not to interfere with the said land of the petitioner in any manner including demolition and dispossession, in the interest of justice and to pass such……” 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 interfere with the 3 peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner’s subject property, without following due process of law. 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 1 2004 (1) SCC 769 4 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 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 12.09.2025 klk 5 40 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENAKTESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO.24571 of 2025 12.09.2025 klk