IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVA (Special Original Jurisdiction) g WEDNESDAY ,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF APRIL ef TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE V PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 10931 OF 2025 Between: 1. Dwaram Subba Reddy@ Subba Rao, S/o. Sri Musala Reddy H.No.51-23 Age 75 years Rangayapalem, Padarthi Kothapatnam Mandal, Prakasam District, Andhra Pradesh Village, -523286 2. Dwaram Murali, S/o. Subba Reddy® Subba Rao, Age: 45 years, H. No.51-23, Padarthi Village, Kotbapatnam Mandal, Prakasam District, Andhra Pradesh -523286. 3. Dwaram Jalaramaih, S/o. Subba Reddy@ Subba Padarthi Village, Prakasam District, Andhra Pradesh -523286. Rao, Age: 42 Kothapatnam Mandal, years, H.No.51-23 ...PETITIONERS AND 1. State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velgapudi Andhra Pradesh 2. The District Collector, Prakasam District, Prakasam Bhavan, Ongole; A.P-523001 3. The Tahsildar, Prakasam District. A.P-523286 Revenue Guntur District, Kothapatnam Mandal Kothapatnam Village, ...RESPONDENTS ^^.circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may e Pieased to issue an order, writ or direction, more particularly one in the ua of,W(rit o, Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in interfering with peaceful petitioners to an extent of Ac. possession and enjoyment of the lands of . ^•■'3‘=®u>S'nSy No. 925/3 and Ac.2.98 cents 'n sy. 925 of Padarthi village of Kothapatnam demanding the petitioners Mandal, Prakasam District by sprinklers and to remove existing bore wells equipment lying on the lands of the arbitrary, violation of Article other farm petitioners as illegal, 14. 19, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 3nt respondent erected at the lands of the petitioners to remove the sign board and not to interfere with the peaceful of petitioner to an extent of Ac. 3.19 cents in Sy.No,925 Padarthi Village District. possession and enjoyment of the land cents in Sy.No. 925/3 and 2.98 Kothapatnam Mandal, Prakasam of jA NO: 1 OF Petition under Section 151 stated in the affidavit filed i CPC praying that in the circumstances m support of the petition, the High Court pleased to direct the respondents may be not to interfere with peaceful possession petitioners to an extent of Ac. 3.19 cents and enjoyment of the lands of the in Sy.No. 925/3 and Ac.2.98 Koth^nat MI Kothapatnam Mandal, Prakasam District. Sy.No.925 of Padarthi Village Counsel for the Petitioners: of SRI N; SIVA REDDY 1 to 3: GP FOR REVENUE ORDER Counsel for the Respondent Nos. The Court made the following: / APHC010212192025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] WEDNESDAY ,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 10931/2025 Between; ...PETITIONER Dwaram Subba Reddy @ Subba Rao AND ...RESPONDENT The State Of Andhra Pradesh Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.N SIVA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent; 1.GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following; 2 NV,J W.P.N0.10931 OF'2025 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU WRIT PETITION NO: 109.^1/909*; NIMMAGADDA ORDER: 1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of 3'"^ of India to issue respondent in interfering the petitioner from the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.3-19 cents i ; Sy.No.925/3 and Ac.2-98 cents in Sy.No.925 of Padarthi village, Kothapatnam Mandal, Prakasam District, without following due in process of law as illegal and arbitrary. I 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 interfere with the peaceful possession and the petitioner without following due process of law. enjoyment of the property of 3. Learned Government Pleader for the respondents submits that in the event of erection of the petitioner from the subject possession, the respondents would follow due process of law. It is settled proposition of law that, property subject to his 4. when the petitioner is in settled possession and enjoyment of the property, the petitioner without following due process of law i cannot be erected, view of the law declared by the Apex in Court in “Rame Gowda (dead) by L.Rs. L.Rs.i . Therefore, if the petitioner is i V. M.Varadappa Naidu (Dead) by IS in possession of the subject property, the 2004(1) see 769 3 NV W.P.N0.10931 OF 202b respondents are directed not to interfere with the peaceful enjoyment of the subject property of the petitioner, except by following due process of law. possession and 5. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission with the consent of both the counsei. No costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed. / Sd/- M SRINIVAS ASSISTANT f^GISTRAR / //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, State Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings, Velgapudi, Guntur District Pradesh 2. The District Collector, Prakasam District. Prakasam Bhavan, A.P-523001 3. The Tahsildar, Kothapatnam Prakasam District. A. P-523286 4. One CC to Sri N. Siva Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 6. Three CD Copies. of Andhra Andhra Ongole Mandal, Kothapatnam Village^ ssb HIGH COURT \ DATED:30/04/2025 ORDER WP.No.10931 of 2025 ^ 13 NOV iNCjffrentSectioij^x^ LOl