::1:: APHC010199582020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] TUESDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 12973/2020 Between: 1. VURIKUTI APPALA RAJU, S/O. APPARAO, AGE. 35, HOUSE NO. 1-122/1, KOTTURE VEDULLA NARAVA, SABBAVARAM MANDAL VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. A.P. ...PETITIONER AND 1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND PRJ WING, A.P SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI GUNTUR DISTRICT 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, VISAKHAPATNAM,VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, GAJUWAKA MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High ::2:: Court may be pleased toto issue an appropriate Writ Order or orders, or Direction more one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in resorting to dispossess the petitioner from his residential Plot though the proposal for allotment of thatched house Plot No. 115, in Sy. Nos. 103,104/7 and 125/1, for an admeasuring 251 Sq. Yards/ 209.869 Sq. Meters, Situated in R.A Colony, Duvvada Village, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District on payment of market value are pending before the 2nd respondent is highly illegal, arbitrary and violation of Art. 14, 21, 300(A) of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from his thatched House Plot No. 115, in Sy. Nos. 103,104/7 and 125/1 Situated in R.A Colony, Duvvada Village, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. VENKATESWARLU GADA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV ::3:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA W.P.No.12973 of 2020 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 an appropriate Writ Order or orders, or Direction more one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in resorting to dispossess the petitioner from his residential Plot though the proposal for allotment of thatched house Plot No.115 in Sy Nos. 103, 104/7 and 125/1 for an admeasuring 251 Sq Yards/ 209.869 Sq Meters situated in R.A. Colony, Duvvada Village, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District on payment of market value are pending before the 2nd respondent is highly illegal, arbitrary and violation of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from his thatched House Plot No.115, in Sy Nos.103, 104/7 and 125/1 Situated in R.A Colony, Duvvada Village, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District 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 property, without following due process of law. ::4:: 3. 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. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the petitioner is the owner of the thatched house plot No.115 in Sy.Nos.103, 104/7 and 125/1, for an admeasuring 251 Sq. Yds / 209.869 Sq. Meters, situated in R.A. Colony, Duvvada Village, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District through the registered Sale Deed vide Document No.2015 of 2020 from one namely Perecharla Padma. Since then the petitioner has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. While so, the respondents alleging that the house plot situated in Sy.No.125/1 is a Government Land and the 4th Respondent is trying to dispossessing the petitioner from the said subject house without due process of law and without giving any notice to the petitioner. Hence the writ petition. 5. It is settled proposition of law that when the petitioner is in 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 ::5:: 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, if not already dispossessed, except by due process of law. 6. 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. _________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J Dt: 23.09.2025 krk 1 2004 (1) SCC 769 ::6:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA W.P.No.12973 of 2020 Dt: 23.09.2025 krk 506