1 APHC010366812025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] FRIDAY,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA IA 4 OF 2025 IN WRIT PETITION NO: 18443/2025 Between: 1. MUNASALA RAMAKRISHNA, S/O ACHARI, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, OCCBUSINESS, R/O D.NO. 14-118, NEELAKANTAVARI VEEDHI, NEAR DADI BOGALINGA SCHOOL, ANAKAPAILI, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. . NYATHA SHYAMALA, W/O Y. RAMESH BABU AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCC PRIVATE EMPLOYEE R/O D.NO.7-75, NGOS COLONY, KOTHURU COLLEGE CENTRE, ANAKAPALLI, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT - 531 001. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS (MORTH) GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, 1, PARLIAMENT STREET, NEW DELHI - 2 110001. 2. THE NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA NHAI, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROJECT DIRECTOR, REGIONAL OFFIC VIJAYAWADA, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, ANAKAPALLI MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...RESPONDENT(S): may be pleased to review the Order dt. 01.08.2025 passed in W.P No. 18443 of 2025 by deleting the word “If” from the operative portion and clarifying that the petitioners are in possession of the subject property, thereby directing the respondents not to dispossess or interfere with the petitioners’ possession without following due process of law and allowing the writ petition as prayed for in the interests of justice and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. VALLURU CHETAN SUSHEEL Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. 3 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA I.A. No.4 OF 2025 IN WRIT PETITION NO: 18443/2025 This Court made the following ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. This interlocutory application is filed by the petitioners seeking to review the order dated 01.08.2025 in W.P.No.18443 of 2025. The operative portion of the order reads as follows: “if the petitioners are in possession of the subject property, the respondents are directed to observe due process of law”. 3. Since it is observed as “if the petitioners are in possession”, taking advantage of the same, as if the petitioners are not in possession the respondents demolished the property of the petitioners. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that even though the petitioners are in possession of the property and were out of station for a while, the respondents took advantage of the same when the petitioners were on emergency work and the 4 respondents high-handedly demolished the property of the petitioners, which is illegal and arbitrary. 5. He submits that taking advantage of the “if” clause mentioned in the order, the respondents resorted to such high- handed action and requested to delete the “if ” clause. 6. When this Court ordered not to dispossess the petitioners from the subject property, if they are in possession of the same, that does not meant that the respondents can proceed when the petitioners are temporarily out of station and they were away on any work. The respondents should consider the long standing possession of the petitioners, but should not have resorted to such unwarranted and arm-twisting dilatory tactics. The respondents have read the order in between the lines, which is uncalled for. It appears that the respondents are proceeding against the petitioners either due to any political pressure or personal animosity. 7. In cases of dispossession matters, this Court makes it clear that, without deciding the title of the property of the petitioners, this Court is directing the respondents to look into the aspect whether the petitioner is continuing in possession of the subject property continuously or not. Temporary absence of the 5 petitioner does not mean that he/she is not in the possession for a specific temporary period and that does not confer any right upon the respondents to meddle with the property and further alleged that the respondents have demolished the structures. No material evidence is put forth before this Court by the respondents to prove that the petitioners are not continuing in possession of the subject property. 8. Without disturbing the order passed by this Court, this Court once again directs the respondents not to interfere with the property of the petitioners. 9. Accordingly, I.A.No.4 of 2025 is disposed of. _________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J Dt: 26.09.2025 krk 6 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA IA 4 OF 2025 IN WRIT PETITION NO: 18443/2025 DT: 26.09.2025 krk