::1:: APHC010555402025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3208] FRIDAY,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 28594/2025 Between: 1. V. BATHI REDDY,, S/O. LATE RAMI REDDY, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, OCC EX-SARPANCH, R/O.CHALLAPALEM VILLAGE, SHKALAHASTHI MANDAL,TIRUPATHI DISTRICT. 2. K. SARITHA,, W/O.CHITTI BABU, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O.CHALLAPALEM VILLAGE, SRIKALAHASTHI MANDAL,TIRUPATHI DISTRICT. 3. S.K.RAJITHA,, W/O. SUBRAMANYAM, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O.CHALLAPALEM VILLAGE, SRIKALAHASTHI MANDAL,TIRUPATHI DISTRICT. 4. V. PADMAVATHI,, W/O. GOPAL REDDY, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O.CHALLAPALEM VILLAGE, SRIKALAHASTHI MANDAL,TIRUPATHI DISTRICT. 5. C.SUBRAMANYAM,, S/O. KRISHNAMA NAIDU, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O.CHALLAPALEMVILLAGE, SRIKALAHASTHI MANDAL,TIRUPATHI DISTRICT. 6. V.MUNIRATHNAMMA,, W/O. SUDHAKAR REDDY, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O.CHALLAPALEM ::2:: VILLAGE, SRIKALAHASTHI MANDAL,TIRUPATHI DISTRICT. 7. V. BHUVANESHWARI,, W/O. GOPAL REDDY, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O.CHALLAPALEM VILLAGE, SRIKALAHASTHI MANDAL,TIRUPATHI DISTRICT. 8. S. SARITHA,, W/O. SURESH, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O.CHALLAPALEM VILLAGE, SRIKALAHASTHI MANDAL,TIRUPATHI DISTRICT. 9. V.SUDHAKAR REDDY,, S/O. KRISHNA REDDY, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O.CHALLAPALEM VILLAGE, SRIKALAHASTHI MANDAL,TIRUPATHI DISTRICT. 10. V.HEMANTH,, S/O.V.SUDHAKAR REDDY, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O.CHALLAPALEM VILLAGE, SRIKALAHASTHI MANDAL,TIRUPATHI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TIRUPATHI DISTRICT. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, SRIKALAHASTHI MANDAL, TIRUPATHI DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, CHALLAPALLEM VILLAGE , SRIKALAHASTHI MANDAL, TIRUPATHI DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): ::3:: This Court made the following ORDER: 1. This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the Petitioners for the following relief: “.to issue an appropriate writ, order, or direction, more particularly a writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondent authorities in attempting to interfere with or dispossess the petitioners from their private patta lands in Sy.Nos. 39 and 44 of Challapallem Village, Srikalahasthi Mandal, Tirupati District, without first delivering possession of the alternative plots assigned to them in Sy.No. 139/4, as arbitrary, illegal, and violative of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to forthwith deliver physical possession of the assigned plots in Sy.No. 139/4 and to carry out demarcation, mutation, and issue of pattadar passbooks and title deeds in favour of the petitioner…” 1. During hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner, without touching the merits of the case, requested this Court to issue a direction to the respondent authorities not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners’ subject property, without following due process of law. 2. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Respondents, admitted that the petitioners are in continuous possession of subject land and the respondents’ authorities would follow due process of law and requested to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 3. It is settled proposition of law that when the petitioners are in settled possession and enjoyment of the property, the respondents are not entitled to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the ::4:: petitioners and such highhanded action of the respondents would amount to depriving the petitioners’ 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 petitioners possession is illegal, still, the petitioners are 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 petitioners are in settled possession and enjoyment of the property, they 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 petitioners, they shall follow due procedure as contemplated under the law. 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 D. RAMESH Dt:21.11.2025 klk 1 2004 (1) SCC 769 ::5:: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D. RAMESH WRIT PETITION No.28594 of 2025 Dt:21.11.2025 klk 88