[3329 ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) * j C"' \ V.- TUESDAY ,THE SIXTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSANDAND TWENTY FIVE V.'' ■/ PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 12304 OF 2025 Between: Bachhala Narasimha Reddy, S/o. Sita Rami Reddy, aged about 65 years, Occ: Agriciture, R/o Indlandu Village, Rajampet Mandal, Kadapa, Andhra Pradesh n ...PETITIONERS AND 1. State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, Department, Secretariat Buildings, Amaravathi, Andhra Revenue Pradesh. 2. The District Collector, Kadapa, Andhra Pradesh. 3. Mandal Revenue Officer, Rajampet, Kadapa District, Andhra Pradesh. 4. The Tahseldar, Kadapa District, Andhra Pradesh. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere with my peaceful possession of land without following due process of law. It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Curt may be pleased to direct the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession of the petitioner’s land to an extent of Ac. 1-29 guntas in Survey No. in Survey No. 90, situated at Penagaluru Village, Kadapa District, Andhra Pradesh. / lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession of the petitioner’s land to an extent of Ac. 1-29 guntas in Survey No. in Survey No. 90, situated at Penagaluru Village, Kadapa District, Andhra Pradesh. Counsel for the Petitioner(s):SRI. V PREETI REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: / ..1.. • • X • • / APHC010237252025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY ,THE SIXTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE [3329] PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 12304/2025 Between: Bachhala Narasimha Reddy ...PETITIONER AND State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.VPREETI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR REVENUE 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 order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents not to Interfere with my peaceful possession of land without following due process of law It is therefore prayed that this Honble’ Curt may be pleased to direct the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession of the petitioners land to 2 an extent of Ac. 1-29 guntas in Survey No. 90 situated at Penagaluru Village Kadapa District Andhra Pradesh and to pass...” 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 2. their lands, without following due process of law. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Respondents, 3. submitted that if 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’ authorities 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 petitioner’s possession is illegal, still, the petitioners are required to 3 be afforded an opportunity before taking r appropriate action and iin view of the law declared by the (dead) by L.Rs. Apex Court in "Rame Gowda V. M.Varadappa Naidu (Dead) by L.Rs\ when enjoyment of the the petitioners are in settled possession and property, they cannot be dispossessed, without following due process of law. Therefore, the interfere with the respondents are directed not to peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners’ subject property. However, if they intend to take property of the petitioners, they shall follow as contemplated under the law. any action against subject the due procedure 5. With the above direction. the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. S *, As a sequel, interlocutory applications Stand closed. if any pending, shall T2004 (1)SCC 769 Sd/- SHAIK MOHD. RAFI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings, Amaravathi, Special Messenger] 2. The District Collector, Kadapa, Andhra Pradesh. 3. Mandal Revenue Officer, Rajampet, Kadapa District, Andhra Pradesh. 4. The Tahseldar, Kadapa District, Andhra Pradesh.[2 TO 4 BY RPAD] 5. One CC ot SR/V PREETI REDDY Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 7. Three CD Copies State of Andhra Andhra Pradesh.[By T \ \ \ \ HIGH COURT DATED:06/05/2025 ORDER WP.No.12304 of 2025 0 3 OCT 2fl» B . Current dection :r: o THE WRIT PETITION IS COSTS DISPOSED OF WITHOUT