::1:: APHC010604252025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3208] FRIDAY,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 31484/2025 Between: 1.C SUMALATHA, W/O. C. SRINIVASULU, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, OCC DAILY WAGE, R/O. D.NO.8-22, VAVILTHOTA, CHITTOOR. 2.A. BHAGYAMMA, W/O LATE SUBRAMANYAM, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE, R/O. D.NO. 12-62, V VENKATAPURAM, VAVILTHOTA, CHITTOOR. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, CHITTOOR. 3.THE TAHSILDAR, POTHALAPATTU MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): ::2:: This Court made the following ORDER: 1. This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the Petitioners for the following relief: “to issue a Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ Of Mandamus declare the action of the Respondents, in trying to dispossess the Petitioners from their respective Agricultural Lands to an extent of Ac.0.60 Cents in Sy.No.657-4El and Ac.l- 24 Cents in Sy.No.657-4E2 of Palakuru Village, Pothalapattu Mandal, Chittoor District as illegal, arbitrary and a violation of Article-14, 21 and 300-A of The Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents not to interfere and dispossess the Petitioner from their respective Agricultural Lands to an extent of Ac.0.60 Cents in Sy.No.657-4El and Ac. 1-24 Cents in Sy.No.657- 4E2 of Palakuru Village, Pothalapattu Mandal, Chittoor District and to pass…” 1. The learned counsel for the petitioners requested this Court to issue a direction to the respondent authorities not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner’s subject property, without following due process of law. 2. Learned Government Pleader for the respondents has furnished written instructions dated 25.11.2025 issued by the Tahsildar, wherein it is stated that no action has been initiated against the subject land of the petitioner, and that if any action is required to be taken against the ::3:: petitioners’ property, the respondent authorities will follow due process of law. 3. It is settled proposition of law that when the petitioners is in settled possession and enjoyment of the property, the respondents are not entitled to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners 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 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 interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner’s subject property. However, if they intend to take any action against subject property of the petitioner, they shall follow due procedure as contemplated under the law. 1 2004 (1) SCC 769 ::4:: 4. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications if any pending, shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE D. RAMESH Dt:28.11.2025 klk ::5:: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D. RAMESH WRIT PETITION No.31484 of 2025 Dt:28.11.2025 klk 308