::1:: APHC010258042020 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: 17014/2020 Between: 1. YERRAGUNTLA. DAYAMMA,, W/O. NAGESWARA RAO, AGED 48 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 9-143-1, VISWANADHAPURAM, 5TH LINE, NEAR NIRMALA CONVENT, PODILI VILLAGE AND MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 2. GUNTAGANI KONDAIAH,, S/O. MOSES, AGED 40 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 9-144, VISWANADHAPURAM, 5TH LINE, NEAR NIRMALA CONVENT, PODILI VILLAGE AND MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 3. TELAGAPUDI MARY GOLD,, D/O. RAMACHADAR RAO, AGED 41 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 9-142-7, VISWANADHAPURAM, 5TH LINE, NEAR NIRMALA CONVENT, PODILI VILLAGE AND MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 4. HOLI SPIRIT CHURCH,, REP. BY ITS PASTOR MONDITOKA YESUBABU, S/O. KOTAIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, D.NO. 9-142-7, VISWANADHAPURARN, 5TH LINE, NEAR NIRMALA CONVENT, PODILI VILLAGE AND MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ::2:: 5. KODURU CHINNAPAMULU,, S/O. SAMUEL, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RIO. D.NO. 9-144/2, VISWANADHAPURAM, 5TH LINE, NEAR NIRMALA CONVENT, PODILI VILLAGE AND MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI VILLAGE, TULLUR MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR PR, PRAKASAM DISTRICT AT ONGOLE. 3. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICER, PRAKASAM DISTRICT AT ONGOLE. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, PODILI MANDAL, PODILI, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 5. THE PODILI GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REP BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER, PODILI, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 6. THE PODILI NAGAR PANCHAYAT, REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER ,PODILI NAGAR PANCHAYAT,PRAKASAM DISTRICT. R6 IS IMPLEADED AS PER THE COURT ORDER DT 25.01.2024 VIDE ORDER PASSED IN I.A. 01 OF 2023 ...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 a Writ order or orders more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the ::3:: action of the Respondents No 4 and 5 in trying to demolish the residential houses of the petitioners situated in door no. 9-143-1, 9-144, 9-142-7, 9-142-7 and 9-144/2 situated in 5th line, viswanadhapuram, Podili Village Mandal, Prakasam District, without issuing any notice and without acquiring the land under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, contrary to the A.P.Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, as being illegal, arbitrary, violation of Principles of Natural Justice and violation of Art. 14, 21 and 300A of, the ,Consitution of India and consequently direct the Respondens not to demolish the residential houses of the petitioners situated in door no. 9-143-1, 9-144, 9-142-7, 9-142-7 and 9- 144/2 situated in 5th line, viswanadhapuram, Podili Village and Mandal, Prakasam District, without acquiring the same under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. MADHAVA RAO NALLURI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 3. VINOD KUMAR KALAVA 4. M MANOHAR REDDY (SC FOR MUNC AND MUNC CORP ) ::4:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA W.P.No.17014 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 a Writ order or orders more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents No 4 and 5 in trying to demolish the residential houses of the petitioners situated in door no. 9- 143-1, 9-144, 9-142-7, 9-142-7 and 9-144/2 situated in 5th line, viswanadhapuram, Podili Village Mandal, Prakasam District, without issuing any notice and without acquiring the land under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, contrary to the A.P.Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, as being illegal, arbitrary, violation of Principles of Natural Justice and violation of Art. 14, 21 and 300A of, the ,Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents not to demolish the residential houses of the petitioners situated in door no. 9-143-1, 9-144, 9-142-7, 9- 142-7 and 9- 144/2 situated in 5th line, viswanadhapuram, Podili Village and Mandal, Prakasam District, without acquiring the same under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, and to pass..” ::5:: 2. During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners, without touching the merits of the case, requested this Court to issue a direction to the respondents not to dispossess the petitioners from their respective properties, without following due process of law. 3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Respondents, admitted that the petitioners are in continuous possession of subject properties and the respondent authorities would follow due process of law and requested to pass appropriate orders. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the petitioners are residents of Pidili Village and residing in their respective thatched houses. The petitioners made representation seeking assignment of the said sites to them and after following the due procedure the then 5th Respondent issued possession certificates in D.Dis.Nos.111/2007, dated 21.02.2007, 674/2007, dated 11.10.2007 and 111/2007, dated 21.02.2007. While so, on 12.09.2020 the 4th respondent came along with his staff and some of the persons claims to belong to 5th Respondent and directed the petitioners to remove parts of back side of petitioners’ houses for widening the road without any prior notice ::6:: and without following due process as contemplated. Hence the writ petition. 5. It is settled proposition of law that when the petitioners are in settled possession and enjoyment of the property, the respondents are not entitled to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners and such highhanded action of the respondents would amount to depriving the petitioners’ 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 these petitioners’ possession is illegal, still, the petitioners are 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 petitioners are in settled possession and enjoyment of the property, they cannot be dispossessed, without following due process of law. Therefore, the respondents are directed not to dispossess the petitioners from their respective properties, except by due process of law. 1 2004 (1) SCC 769 ::7:: 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 ::8:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA W.P.No.17014 of 2020 Dt: 23.09.2025 krk 510