Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 32397 (AP)

P. NARAMMA v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

WP/24623/2025 · 2025-09-11

Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

::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: 24623/2025 Between: 1. P. NARAMMA, W/O. P.VENKATA RAMUDU, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE, R/O.D.NO.12- 545, KURUBA STREET, DHARMAVARAM, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT, PUTTAPARTHY, ERSTWHILE ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, DHARMAVARAM, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, DHARMAVARAM MANDAL, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. 5. ILLURI LAKKANNA, S/O. LATE BASANNA, AGE NOT KNOWN, R/O.D.NO.4-38-12A, SC COLONY, SEETHARAMPALLI VILLAGE, CHANDRAKALA POST, DHARMAVARAM MANDAL, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT ERSTWHILE ANANTAPUR 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 writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, questioning the action of the 4th respondent in trying to dispossess the petitioner from the land an extent of Ac.0.62 cents in Sy.No.66-1D of Regatipalli Village, Dharmavaram Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District Erstwhile Anantapur District without issuing any notice and without following the procedure contemplated under the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Book Act, 1971 as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Article 14 , 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and Consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of land an extent of Ac.0.62 cents in Sy.No.66-1D of Regatipalli Village, Dharmavaram Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District Erstwhile Anantapur District and 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 interfere with the 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 3 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 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. 1 2004 (1) SCC 769 4 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 50 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENAKTESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO.24623 of 2025 12.09.2025 klk