APHC010868952016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] FRIDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 16521/2016 Between: Lingayatu Mallappa, S/o. Basanna, and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. K SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE (AP) 2. MOHAMMED GAYASUDDIN 3. S ARIFULLAH (SC FOR AP WAQF BOARD) The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: 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 declaring the action of the 4th respondent in interfering with the peaceful possession of the land to an extent of Ac 14 30 cents in Sy.No.116 situated at Chinna Thumbalam Village, Peddakadubur Mandal, Kurnool District without any jurisdiction and without following due process of law is illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and also violation of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to dispossess us from the lands in Sy.No 116 to an extent of Ac 14 30 cents situated at Chinna Thumbalam Village Peddakadubur Mandal Kurnool District and to pass such other order or orders …..” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Revenue Department appearing for the respondents. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been in possession and cultivation of the land in Sy. No. 116, an extent of Ac. 14.30 cents, situated in Chinna Thumbalam Village, Peddakadubur Mandal, Kurnool District, since 1998. The petitioners purchased the said land through registered title deeds and have been cultivating the subject land since then. 3 4. While things stood thus, the 4th respondent is trying to dispossess the petitioners forcibly and lease out the land to others. The learned counsel further submits that the action of the 4th respondent is illegal, contrary to law, and in violation of due process of law. Hence, the present writ petition. 5. He further submits that if the respondents intend to dispossess the petitioners from the subject land, the respondents’ authorities should follow due process of law as contemplated under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. 6. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue Department appearing for the respondents submits that if the respondents intend to dispossess the petitioners from the subject land, the respondents will follow the due process of law as contemplated under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. 7. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the record, this Court is of the considered view that the Writ Petition can be disposed of, by directing 4 the respondents, more particularly, respondent No. 4 not to dispossess the petitioners from the subject land, without following due process of law as contemplated under the Act. 8. With the above said direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition shall stand closed. _________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 07.02.2025 kkllkk 5 150 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION No.16521 of 2016 07.02.2025 kkllkk