APHC010396682025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] TUESDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 20286/2025 Between: 1. E GURUVAIAH, S/O. JAYA RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCC COOLI WORKER, R/O. H.NO. 5-10, ARUNDATHIPURAM, PUDIPATIA VILLAGE, TIRUPATHI RURAL MANDAL TIRUPATI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. THE COLLECTOR, TIRUPATI DISTRICT AT TIRUPATI. 3. THE MANDAL PARISHAD DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, TIRUPATI URBAN MANDAL, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 4. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, MANGALAM VILLAGE PANCHAYAT, MANGALAM VILLAGE, TIRUPATI URBAN MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 5. THE TIRUPATI URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, REP. BY ITS VICE CHAIRMAN, TIRUPATHI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): The Court made the following ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that the acts of the respondents and their authorities more particularly respondent nos, 4 and 5 interfering in petitioners possession and enjoyment of petitioners scheduled property with an extent of Ac. 0.10 cents in Sy. No. 109-8A of Mangalam Village, Tirupati Urban Mandal, Tirupati District, without issuing any notice to the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violation of Principals of Natural Justice and violation of Article 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and violation of the Provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and consequently direct the respondent nos. 4 and 5 and their authorities not to interfere in the petitioners possession and enjoyment of the petitioners subject property with an extent of Ac. 0.10 cents in Sy. No. 109- 8A of Mangalam Village, Tirupati Urban Mandal, Tirupati District without following due process of law and pass…” 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing counsel for the 5th respondent. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s grandfather is the absolute owner and possessor of the subject land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.0.52 cents in Sy.No.109/8, situated at Mangalam Village, Tirupati Urban Mandal, Tirupati District. He submits that the respondent authorities had acquired the petitioner’s land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.0.42 cents in S.Y. No.109/8 in the year 1989 for the formation of an 80-feet road from Mangalam Housing Complex to Renigunta–Tirupati Main Road, which was later subdivided as Sy.No.109/8B. After such acquisition of Ac.0.42 cents, the petitioner still has been in possession and enjoyment of the remaining extent of Ac.0.10 cents, which was subdivided as Sy.No.109/8A. However, without following due procedure and without issuing any notice to the petitioner, the respondents are trying to interfere with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property, which is contrary to law. Hence, the present writ petition. 4. On the other hand, the learned standing counsel for the 5th respondent filed counter affidavit wherein it is stated that:- “In this connection I respectfully submit that during the year 1989, the Tirupati Urban Development Authority has acquired an extent of Ac.6-43 cents of land in Sy.No.98/7B et., which includes Sy./No.109/8B measuring to an extent of Ac.0.42 cents of Mangalam village, Tirupati Rural Mandal, Tirupati district for formation of 80 feet road from Mangalam housing complex to Renigunta-Tirupati main road vide award No.8/89 dated 30.12.1988. Further I respectfully submit that the requisition of the said land was filed by TUDA, Tirupati for the purpose of forming of 80 feet road from Mangalam housing complex to Renigunta, Tirupati main road. This respondent authority has not required the petitioner’s schedule land of Ac.0.10 in survey number 109/8A. This respondent has neither visited the petitioner schedule land nor interfered in any manner what so ever. Hence this respondent has nothing to do with the petitioner’s schedule land.” 5. He further submits that the 5th respondent did not interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property of the petitioner in respect of Ac.0.10 cents in Sy.No.109/8A. 6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the 5th respondent, and on perusal of the material available on record, this Court is of the considered view that, in view of the clear and categorical statement made by the 5th respondent in his counter affidavit that, the respondents are not interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property of the petitioner in respect of land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.0.10 cents in Sy.No.109/8A. Therefore, the grievance of the petitioner is appears to be only an apprehension. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled for due process of law if the respondents intend to interfere with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property. Hence, the respondents are directed not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property without following due process of law. 7. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition shall stand closed. ______________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 09.09.2025 klk 549 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION No.20286 of 2025 09.09.2025 kkllkk