APHC010575072024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] MONDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 30173/2024 Between: Kunjam Ram Babu Dora ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K VENKATESH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE 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 action of the respondents in seeking to dispossess the petitioner from his house site to Ac.0-04 cents in Sy.No.57/7 situated at Gangavaram Village & Mandal, Alluri Sita Rama Raju District as illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from his house site mentioned above without following due process of law.” 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 Government Pleader for Revenue submitted written instructions of the Tahsidlar, Gangavaram Mandal vide Ref.A/19/2025 dated 20.01.2025 stating that as per A-Register of Gangavaram Village of Gangavaram Mandal, the land in Sy.No.57/7, Ac.1-82 cents is classified as Gramakantam. As per field enquiry, the land covered i.e. Ac.0-04 cents in Sy.No.57/7 is vacant with two bathrooms in dilapidated condition. The 2nd respondent and his subordinates never visited the subject land nor tried to dispossess petitioner from the subject land and as the subject land is classified as Gramakantam, it comes under the purviw of Gram Panchayat as per G.O.Ms.No.188 dated 21.07.2011 and submitted 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:20.01.2025 SP 1 2004 (1) SCC 769 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 30173/2024 Date:20.01.2025 W SP