::1:: APHC010246532025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] TUESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 12398/2025 Between: Chapidi Srinivasula Reddy ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K NARSI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE ::2:: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENAKTESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION No.12398 of 2025 This Court made the following ORDER: 1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution 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 4th respondent in evicting the petitioner admeasuring for an extent of Ac.0.25 cents in Sy.No.128-43 situated at Gundlasamudram Village, Venkatagiri Mandal, Tirupathi District without following due process of law as illegal, arbitrary, violation of principles of natural justice and violation of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to disposes or interfere with the possession of the petitioner in the above said land and pass..” 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. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Respondents, admitted that the petitioner is in continuous possession of subject property and the respondent authorities would follow due process of law and requested to pass appropriate orders. ::3:: 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the petitioner is the resident of Gundlasamudram Village, Venkatagiri Mandal, Tirupathi District and eking out livelihood by doing cultivation. The Revenue Authorities by recognizing the petitioner’s possession of the land, issued agriculture land possession patta vide proceedings F.Dis.No.86/1412, dated 12.03.2003 in favour of the petitioner in respect of land to an extent of Ac.0.25 cents in Sy.No.128-43 situated at Gundlasamudram Village, Venkatagiri Mandal, Tirupathi District. Since the date of assignment, the petitioner has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the said land. The above said land is the only source for petitioner’s livelihood and to petitioner’s family members by cultivating seasonal crops like paddy and other vegetables etc., 5. While so, from 15.04.2025 till today, the 4th respondent and their officials are interfering with agricultural activities and directing the petitioner not to enter into the subject land by stating that, the 4th respondent is intended to dig a tank for storage of sewage water of villagers in the subject land. The respondents have not issued any notice for acquiring the subject land of the petitioner. Hence the writ petition. 6. It is settled proposition of law that when the petitioner is in settled possession and enjoyment of the property, the respondents are not entitled ::4:: 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 petitioner’s possession is illegal, still, the petitioner is 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 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 dispossess the petitioner from his property, except by due process of law. 7. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of, with the consent of both the counsel. No costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications if any pending, shall stand closed. _____________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA 06.05.2025 krk 1 2004 (1) SCC 769 ::5:: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENAKTESWARLU NIMMAGADDA 113 WRIT PETITION No.12398 of 2025 06.05.2025 krk