Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 51614 (AP)

Sri Sangali Lakshmi Narasaiah v. The State of Andhra Pradesh,

WP/17351/2020 · 2025-09-18

Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

::1:: APHC010263082020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] FRIDAY,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 17351/2020 Between: 1. SRI SANGALI LAKSHMI NARASAIAH, S./O. SRI NARASIMHULU AGE. 34 YEARS H.NO.2-1, SC COLONY, KONDURU VILLAGE, ATLOOR MANDAL, KADAPA, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KADAPA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. THE TAHASILDAR, ATLOOR MANDAL, ATLOOR MANDAL, KADAPA, ANDHRA PRADESH. 4. THE MANDAL PARISHAD DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, (MDPO), ATLOOR MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 5. THE KONDUR GRAM PANCHAYAT, REP. BY ITS PANCHAYAT SECRETARY KODUR VILLAGE, ATLOOR ::2:: MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...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 topleased to issue a writ more in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No.3 to 5 in interfering with possession of the petitioner property in Sy.No.582, admeasuring Ac.0.03 Cents, Plot No.173, SC Colony, Konduru Village, Atloor Mandal, Kadapa District and threatening to lay CC Road without acquiring the same as arbitrary, illegal, discriminative, in violation of principles of natural justice, violative of the Fundamental Right guaranteed under Articles 14 and 300-A, the Constitutional Right guaranteed under Constitution of India and pass such other order or orders as are deemed fit Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SRINIVAS BASAVA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. V VINOD K REDDY ::3:: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENAKTESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO.17351 of 2025 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 direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent Nos.3 to 5 in interfering with possession of the petitioner property in Sy.No.582, admeasuring Ac.0.03 cents, Plot No.173, SC Colony, Konduru Village, Atloor Mandal, Kadapa District and threatening to lay CC Road without acquiring the same as arbitrary, illegal, discriminative, in violation of principles of natural justice, violative of the Fundamental Right guaranteed under Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitutional Right guaranteed under Constitution of India 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 land, 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 petitioner’s grandmother Late P. Subbamma was granted D- Form patta for land admeasuring Ac.0.03 cents, Plot No.173 in Sy.No.582 of Konduru Village, Atloor Mandal, Kadapa District. During her life time petitioner’s grandmother constructed a small house in about Ac.0.1½ cents of land and left some open space towards back side and Eastern side. Insofar as back side of property with a view to construct toilets and constructed a small room for Motor, afterwards dugged a bore well for ground water. The electricity department had also gave power supply connection to the house of the petitioner. He further submits that petitioner’s grandmother died about 15 years ago, and the petitioner along with his family members are living in the said house from the past 25 years without any interference and is in peaceful possession of the same. ::5:: 5. While things stood thus, the officials of Respondent Nos.3 to 5 informed that they would lay a CC road of 20 feet wide and as such pointed out that some structures that would be affected. So far as petitioner’s land is concerned, they informed that certain area on Eastern side and Motor Room would be affected for laying of the road. The authorities without marking the exact potion that would be affected for road widening or for the purpose of laying extended road are now interfering with petitioner’s possession and asking petitioner to vacate the portion of house and not paying the compensation for land and structures in land. Hence the writ petition. 6. 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 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 ::6:: 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, except by due process of law. 7. 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. ______________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA 19.09.2025 krk 1 2004 (1) SCC 769 ::7:: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENAKTESWARLU NIMMAGADDA 595 WRIT PETITION NO.17351 of 2020 19.09.2025 krk