iN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAVA (Special Original Jurisdiction) > MONDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH day OF APRIL FIVE ^ TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY PRESENT the honourable SRI JUSTICE WRIT PETITION NO- inpcp qf VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA ^ 2025 Between: T Pokala Narayanamma, r ■ D.No. 3-67, Meer Abdulla Kadapa District. w/o Prabhakar Reddy, aged 46 years, R/o - Palle, S.Ramapuram, Gopavaram Mandal, 2. Kaluvai Rajasekhar Reddy, S/o Narasimha, aged 40 3-96, Neerudrallaya Palle, years, R/o D.No. S.Ramapuram, Gopavaram Mandal, Kadapa D!strict. ' -.PETITIONERS AND 1. The ^ate of Andhra Pradesh; Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Departrnent Secretariat, Veiagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District 2. The District Collector, Kadapa District. 3. The Tahsildar, Gopavaram Mandal, 4. The Mandal Parishad Development Kadapa District. 5. The Station House Officer, V/ Kadapa District. Officer, Gop^aram Mandal, Badvel Rural Police Station Badvel -RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more ’ nature of Writ of Mandamus Of the Constitution of India praying that in the High Court may particularly one in the declaring the action of the action of the respondents 3, 4 and 5'i possession and interfering with the in petitioners peaceful admeasuring Ac. 1.16 in S. Ramapuram Viliage, Gopavaram enjoyment of the agricultural lands cents in Sy.No 1687 situated i Mandal, Kadapa District, purportedly to lay a bore well and construct a shed in the as wholly illegal, arbitrary, unjust, contrary to principles of natural justice besides petitioners private agricultural land untenable, unconstitutional being violative of Article 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India. lA NO: 1 OF Petition under Section 151 stated in the affidavit filed i pleased to direct the CPC praying that in the circumstances - in support of the petition, the High Court may be respondents not to interfere without our peaceful possession by laying bore well or constructing a shed^o the petitioners private agricultural land admeasuring an extent of Ac. 1.16 cents in Sy. No 1687 situated in S. Ramapuram Village. Gopavaram District. Mandal, Kadapa Counsel for the Petitioner: M/S. Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 Counsel for the Respondent No.4: CKR ASSOCIATES - to 3: GP FOR REVENUE.^ SRI MATTEGUNTA SUDHEER, SC FOR MPDO Counsel for the Respondent No.5: GP FOR HOME ^ The Court made the following: ORDER ■ APHC010218312025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] MONDAY ,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 10862/2025 Between; ...PETITIONER(S) Pokala Narayanamma and Others AND ...RESPONDENT(S) The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1.CKR ASSOCIATES Counsel for the Respondent(S); 1.GP FOR HOME 2.GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following ORDER: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India seeking the following reliefs;- To issue a Writ Order or Directionmore particularlyone in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the action of the respondents 3, 4 and 5 in interfering with the petitioners peaceful possession and enjoyment of the agricultural lands admeasuring Ac.1 .16 cents in Sy.No.1687 situated in S.Ramapuram Village, Gopavaram Mandal, Kadapa District purportedly to lay a bore well and construct a shed in the petitioners private agricultural land as wholly illegal arbitrary unjust untenable unconstitutional 2 contrary to principles of '"“tetive Of Articles 21 such other order. being of India 2. Heard the Government Plead learned counsel for the respondents. petitioner the learned er for the 3. The learned ore the absolute to an counsel for the owners and petitioners submits possessors of the that the petitioners obmeasuring Homapuram subject land, situated at S. acquired the extent ofAc.1.i6 ^cnts in Sy. No. '^ondaland 1687, ^'"P9e, Gopavaram through having subject petitioners have said land. While succession from property been in their ancestors, the enjoyment of the peaceful possession and Nos. 3 so, and 4 respondent are "■ying to interfere enjoyment of the with the petitioners’ to lay a borewell “ctrary to law. Hence possession and eni construct peaceful property by trying Which is a shed on the present writ petition. and subject land. , the On the other Revenue dated 27.04.2025 f'and. the learned Assistant Government rospondents furnished Pleader for 'nstructions oppearing for the written i wherein it i's stated that as follows;- It is submitted that P°ssessionofthelandlo in subject right to the petitioner’s family h on extent of Ac. 1.34 even they are having cents only ie Of AC.O.IS centa i. ' efpetitioner’s family. IS in cents survey number en extent of Ac. title nf land to Pcssession excess IS under the Further it i receipt of the - IS pertinent to complaint filed submit here that, by the on villagers with \ 3 regard to the excess possession of the land by the petitioners, my sub-ordinates have visited the subject land and identified the excess possession of the land to an extent of Ac.0.18 cents in subject survey number not tried to dispossession the petitioners from the subject land. Hence the allegation of the petitioner that the 4'^ respondent tried to dispossession of the petitioner from the subject land is false and far away from the truth. Further the petitioner is also alleged that this respondent is tried to dig a bore well in the subject land is also false and baseless as this respondents is no way to concern to dig a bore well. 5. It is settled proposition of law that when the petitioners are in settled possession and enjoyment of the property, the respondents are not i entitled to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners and such highhanded action of the respondents would depriving the petitioner’s violating constitutional right guaranteed under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, besides violation of Article of the Constitution of India. Even amount to 14 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 LRs. V. M.Varadappa Naidu (Dead) by LRs. 1 when the petitioners are in settled possession and enjoyment of the property, they dispossessed, without following due process of law. Therefore, the cannot be 2004(1) see 769 I 4 respondents are directed not to interfere with the petitioners’ subject property. However, if they intend to interfere construction activity, they shall follow the due contemplated under the law. or undertake any procedure as \ 6. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel miscellaneous application, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. SDI- M. PRABHAKAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// To, SECTION OFFICER 1. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, State of Andhra Pradesh. Secretariat. Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District 2. The District Collector. Kadapa District. 3. The Tahsildar, Gopavaram Mandal, Kadapa District. 4. The Mandal Parishad Development Officer. Gopavaram Kadapa District. Mandal 5. The Station House Officer, Badvel Rural Police Station, Badvel. 6. One CC to M/s. CKR Associates, Advocate [OPUC] ^ 7. One CC to Sri Mattegunta Sudheer, SC for ZPP, MPP & Gram Panchayat[OPUC] ^ 8. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra 9. Two CCs to GP for Home, High Court of Andhra 10. Three CD Copies. Pradesh. [OUT] Pradesh. [OUT] ssb HIGH COURT DATED:28/04/2025 \ ORDER WP.No.10862 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS