::1:: APHC010015192025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] FRIDAY ,THE TENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 773/2025 Between: Manjamma ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P NARAHARI BABU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 2. GP FOR REVENUE 2 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENAKTESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO.773 of 2025 This 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 more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning the action of the Respondents in seeking dispossession of the Petitioner from his property in an extent of Ac.0.2½ cents admeasuring 50 X 50 feet and in Sy.No.47-2B bounded by East: Road, West: Bommannagari Siddappa Site, North: Era Siddammagari Site, South: Kanchappagari Site situated at Yarraguntapalli Village, H/o Nidragatta Village, Amalapuram Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District Erstwhile Anantapuram District without following any procedure under law and without issuing any notice or any proceedings as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the above said property without following due process of law 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 dispossess the petitioner from his land, without following due process of law. 3 3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Respondents, admitted that the petitioner is continuing the possession of subject land and the respondents authorities would follow due process of law and requested to pass appropriate orders. 4. The petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the property in an extent of Ac.0.2½ cents admeasuring 50 X 50 feet and in Sy.No.47-2B bounded by East: Road, West: Bommannagari Siddappa Site, North: Era Siddammagari Site, South: Kanchappagari Site situated at Yarraguntapalli Village, H/o Nidragatta Village, Amalapuram Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District Erstwhile Anantapuram District. By considering long standing possession of the Petitioner over the subject property and being eligible for assignment, the 4th Respondent herein issued possession certificate vide L.Dis.No.3/14/14/2006, dated 08.11.2006. The petitioner constructed small hut and residing there and has been in possession and enjoyment of the same till today. 5. While so, surprisingly the staff of 4th and 5th Respondents herein came to the property of the Petitioner on 06.01.2025 and measured the land and they sought to disposses the petitioner by removing small hut and when petitioner questioned about their 4 action they replied that on instructions from authorities they are initiating the action, thereafter immediately the Petitioner submitted possession certificate relevant to subject property, whereby on that day they let off and further warned that within three days they would come and petitioner was directed to remove small hut otherwise they would demolish forcibly by dispossessing the petitioner from the said property. Hence the Writ Petition. 6. 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 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 1 2004 (1) SCC 769 5 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. 7. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of, with the consent of both the counsel. No costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications if any pending, shall stand closed. _____________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA 10.01.2025 krk 6 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENAKTESWARLU NIMMAGADDA 151 WRIT PETITION NO.773 of 2025 10.01.2025 krk