APHC010021672025 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: 1166/2025 Between: Nukala Ganesh, ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V SAI KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 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 more particularly the 5th respondent in interfering with the property of the petitioner in D.No.15-74 in R.S.No.188/5, Nukala Shopping Complex, Near Anjaneya Swamy Temple, Hanuman Junction, Bapulapadu Village and Mandal, Krishna District under the guise of the notice issued to the 5th respondent by the 2nd respondent in File No.MAU61-DP0GNV(OTH)/37/2024- DP dated 06.12.2025 inspite of receipt of reply to the earlier notice dated 23.12.2024 on 26.12.2024 as illegal, arbitrary and oppose to Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently, direct the respondents more particularly, Respondent No.5 not to interfere/demolish the property of the petitioner in D.No.15-74 in R.S.No.188/5, Nukala Shopping Complex, Near Anjaneya Swamy Temple, Hanuman Junction, Bapulapadu Village and Mandal, Krishna District. 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 counsel appearing for the respondents, admitted that the petitioner is continuing in possession of his land and 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:10.01.2025 SP 1 2004 (1) SCC 769 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 1166/2025 Date:10.01.2025 SP