IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARA (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 11981 OF 2025 Between; E. Santhakumar, S/o. Late E. Purusotham Aged about 49 years, Occ; Cultivation, R/o. Mallavaram Revenue Village, Renigunta Mandal, Tirupati District. ...Petitioner/s AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi Amaravathi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh. 2. The District Collector, Tirupati District at Tirupati Andhra Pradesh. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Srikalahasthi .Tirupathi District, Andhra Pradesh. 4. The Tahsildar, Renigunta Mandal Renigunta, Tirupati District. 5. The Village Revenue officer, R Mallavaram Village, Renigunta Mandal, Tirupati 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 Court may be pleased to issue an order or orders more particularly one in the nature of the writ of mandamus, by declaring high handed action of the respondent authorities in trying to evict the petitioner from the land in an extent to 0.16 cents in sy No.301/1, R Mallavaram Villge of Renugunta Mandal, Tirupathi District after rejecting the grievance of the petition after issuing vide proceedings vide Roc. No. A/85/2025, dated 25.04.2025 is illegal, arbitrary, improper, unjust, violation of rights guaranteed under Article 14,19 and 21 of the constitution of India and violation of principles of Natural Justice and without following procedure contemplated under law consequently direct the respondent not to evict the petitioner from the land in extent to 0.16 cents in Sy. No.301/1, R.Mallavaram Villge of Renugunta Mandal, Tirupathi District without following procedure. 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 to direct the Respondent No.4 and its subordinates disposses from the property an extent to 0.16 cents in sy No.301/1, R Mallavaram Villge of Renugunta Mandal, Tirupathi District; Counsel for the PetltionerrSRI. CH VENKAT RAMAN Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: not to 1 NV,J W,P.No.ll981of2025 APHC010241822025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] MONDAY ,THE FIFTH DAY OF MAY TWO,THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT the honourable SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 11981/2025 Between; «I I -. . ...PETITIONER b baniricitvudidi AND The State Of Ap and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.CH VENKAT RAMAN ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Respondent(S); 1.GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: 2 NV,J W.P.No.11981 of 2025 The Court made the following: 1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue Writ of Mandamus, claiming the following direction: “To issue a writ of mandamus, by declaring high handed action of the respondent authorities in trying to evict the petitioner from the land in an extent to 0.16 cents in sy No.301/1, R Mallavaram Villge of Renugunta Mandal, Tirupathi District after rejecting the grievance of the petition after issuing vide proceedings vide Roc. No. A/85/2025, dated 25.04.2025 is illegal, arbitrary, improper, unjust, violation of rights guaranteed under Article 14,19 and 21 of the constitution of India and violation of principles of Natural Justice and without following procedure contemplated under law consequently direct the respondent not to evict the petitioner from the land in extent to 0.16 cents in Sy. No.301/1, R.Mallavaram Villge of Renugunta Mandal, Tirupathi District without following procedure. 1^ ■ 2. The case of the petitioner is that, petitioner claims to be^owner and possessor of the land of an extent of Ac.0-16 cents in SY.No.301/1, R. Mallavaram Village, Renigunta Mandal, Tirupati District. The name of the petitioner was mutated in the revenue records and pattadar passbooks were also issued in his favour. The petitioner has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject land without any interruption whatsoever. The petitioner submits that, respondents are trying to interfere into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner’s subject land. Questioning the inaction of the respondents, the present writ petition is filed. 3 NV,J W.P.No,11981 of 2025 3. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue placed on record written instructions furnished by the Tahsildar, Renigunta Mandal, Tirupati District dated 03.05.2025, wherein it is submitted that, the land in Sy.No.301/1 measuring Acs.0-69 cents of R. Mallavaram Village is classified as Govt. Poramboke and registered as "Gunta”. Since the land is Government land that too, water pormaboke^, it is prohibited from alienation in any way to others. The staff reported that the land is under unauthorized occupation of the petitioner and the land is being used by general public for cart track/rastha/pathway leading to the gnririjitural lands. Based on the above written instri'ctions Pleader for Revenue requested to dismiss the writ petition. course loornorl W w V w i i i t M S i (. 4. 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. 5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue submits that, the respondents would follow due process of law and requested to pass appropriate orders. 6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader cfr Revenue and perused the material available on record. 4 NV,J W.P.No.ll981of 2025 7. When the petitioner is in settled possession and enjoyment of the property, he cannot be dispossessed, without following due process of law 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. . Ther(jfore, if the petitioner is in possession of the subject property, the respondents are directed not to dispossess the petitioner from the subject properly, except by due process of 1 ” law. 8. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission with the consent of both the counsel. No costs. 9. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pencing, if any, shall also stand closed. Sd/- M. SRINIVAS ASSISTANT RJ&GISTRAR / //TRUE COPY// SECTJON OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary, State of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi Amaravathi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh. (BY SPECIALME SSENGER) 2. The District Collector, Tirupati District at Tirupati Andhra Pradesh. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Srikalahasthi .Tirupathi District, Andhra Pradesh. 4. The Tahsildar, Renigunta Mandal Renigunta, Tirupati District. 5. The Village Revenue officer, R Mallavaram Village, Renigunta Mandal, Tirupati District. (Addressee Nos.2 to 5 BY RPAD) 6. One CC to SRI. CH VENKAT RAMAN Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 8. Three CD Copies HIGH COURT DATED:05/05/2025 ORDER WP.No.11981 of 2025 7 g SF^ OT m. 3: Cok ^ Current section ^ DISPOSSING THE WRIT PETITIION WITHOUT COSTS