V IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAV (Special Original Jurisdiction) . \ t :- WEDNESDAY ,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 11354 OF 2025 Between: Talamanchi Venkataramana Reddy, Age about 57 Years, S/o Late Ranga Reddy, R/o P.Kothapalli Village, Penagaluru Mandal, Annamayya District ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. The District Collector, Annamayya District District. 3. The Tahsildar, Penagaluru, Pengaluru Mandal, Annamayya District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents particularly the respondent No.3 in trying to dispossess the petitioner from his agriculture land in Sy.No. 48/C/3 of Ac 2.00 Cents (DKT Patta No.348/1401 of 1991) at Singareddy Palli Village Penagaluru Annamayya-District and without following the due process of law, without paying compensation to the petitioner, is highly illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, violation of Principles of Natural Justice and also in violation of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India consequently direct the respondents particularly the 3rd respondent not to dispossess the petitioner from his agriculture land in Sy.No. 48/C/3 of Ac 2.00 Cents (vide DKT Patta No.348/1401 of 1991) at Singareddy Palli Village, Penagaluru Mandal, Annamayya District. Mandal, and lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to direct the respondents particularly the respondent No.3 not to dispossess the petitioner from his agriculture land in Sy.No. 48/C/3 of Ac 2.00 Cents (vide DKT Patta No.348/1401 Of 1991) at Singareddy Palli Village, Penagaluru Mandal, Annamayya District, pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. VELAGANI NARASIMHULU Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following Order: ::1:: APHC010229552025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY .THE THIRTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 11354/2025 [3329] Between; Talamanchi Venkataramana Reddy, AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner; 1.VELAGANI NARASIMHULU Counsel for the Respondent{S); 1.GP FOR REVENUE This Court made the following ORDER:- ...PETITIONER This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the ConsLtution 1. 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 respondents particularly the respondent No 3 In trying to dispossess the petitioner from his agriculture land in Sy.No.48/C/3 of Ac.2.00 Cents DKT Patta No. 348/1401 of 1991 at Singareddy Palli Village, Penagaluru Mandal, Annamayya District and without following the due process of law without paying compensation to the petitioner is highly Illegal arbitrary unconstitutional violation of Principles of Natural Justice and also in violation of Articles 14 and 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents particularly the 3rd respondent not to dispossess the petitioner from his agriculture land In Sy.No.48/C/3 of Ac.2.00 Cents vide DKT Patta No.348/1401 of 1991 at Singareddy Palli Village Penagaluru Mandal Annamayya District and pass...” 2 , > • VI 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. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Respondents, admitted that the petitioner is 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. It is settled proposition of law that when the petitioner is in 4. settled possession and enjoyment of the property, the respondents are not entitled to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner and such highhanded action of the respondents would amount to depriving the petitioner’s 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 3 Gowda (dead) by LRs. v. M.Varadappa Naidu (Dead) by L.Rs. , 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 interfere with the petitioner’s subject property without following the due procedure as contemplated under the law. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No 5. costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications if any pending, shall stand closed. Sd/- K. TATA RAO deputy REGio i i^-^R 2004 (1)SCC 769 //true copy// SECTION OFFICER To, Department, Secretariat Buildings 1 The Principal Secretary Revenue Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. The District Collector Annamayya District District Mandal, Annamayya District Tahsildar, Penagaluru, Pengaluru 3. The i Narasimhulu, Advocate [OPUC] Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 4. One CC to Sri. Velagani GP for Revenue ,High 5. TwoCCsto 6. Three CD Copies vna HIGH COURT DATED:30/04/2025 ORDER WP.No.11354of 2025 ^ 2 3 JUN 2025 i ntSectot^^ Co DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS