APHC010183132025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] WEDNESDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 12686/2025 Between: Akepati Raghunatha Reddy ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KUNTAMUKKALA SAI SREE SANJAY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. Mattegunta.Sudhir,Standing Counsel For Z.P.Ps,M.P.Ps,Gram Panchayats The Court made the following order: The short grievance of the petitioner is the respondent authorities have demolished the compound wall without following law and threatening to dispossess him from the subject property admeasuring Ac.0.08cents in Sy.No.183 situated at Nagireddipalle Gram Panchayat, Nagireddipalle village, Nandalur mandal, Annamaiah district. 2. Heard Sri K.S.S.Sanjay, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri M.Sudhir, learned Standing counsel for Gram Panchayat and Sri Venkata Satyanarayana, learned Assistant government pleader for Revenue. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit contended that, the petitioner is absolute owner of the subject property. He further contended that, the 4th and 6th respondents have highhandedly demolished the compound wall without giving any notice or opportunity of hearing and threatened to vacate the subject property. If such an action is allowed to materialize, the rights of the petitioner would be affected. As such prayed to pass appropriate orders protecting the interest of the petitioner. 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue on counter submitted that certain unknown individuals have demolished the compound wall but the petitioner has attributed the demolition on the revenue officials. However, if the authorities have any intention to interfere with the subject property, they would follow due process of law. Accordingly prayed to pass appropriate orders in that regard. 5. Perused the record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for respective parties. 6. The prime grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents have highhandedly demolished the compound wall without giving any notice or opportunity of hearing and threatened to dispossess him from the subject property. Whereas, the contention of the revenue authorities is that, it is some third parties who demolished the compound wall but not the revenue authorities as alleged by the petitioner. However, this Court is not inclined to go into the said aspect as to who had demolished the compound wall in the subject property. 7. In view of the submission made by the learned Assistant Government Pleader that, if the authorities have any intention to interfere with the subject property, they would follow due process of law, this writ petition can be disposed of with the following directions: “The respondent authorities are directed not to interfere with the subject property, except under due process of law.” Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI BRS