APHC010080652019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] THURSDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 3573/2019 Between: 1. G NARASIMHULU, S/O. LATE G. APPANNA, AGED 60 YEARS, OCC POTTERY AND ALLIED WORKS, R/O. KUMMARI STREET, BONDAPALLE, VIZAINAGARAM DISTRICT. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYAT RAJ, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. MUSHINIVALASA GRAMPANCHAYAT, REP. BY ITS SARPANCH, MUSHINIVALASA, G. SIGADAM MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. DALEMRAJUVALASA GRAMPANCHAYAT, REP. BY ITS SARPANCH, DALEMRAJUVALASA GRAMPANCHAYAT, G. SIGADAM MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 The Court made the following ORDER: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India seeking the following reliefs:- “to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of 'Writ of Mandamus' declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in seizing the bricks of the petitioner's situated in the lands to an extent of Ac.1-80 cents out of Ac.2-30 cents in Sy.No.481 to 485 situated at Sarveswarapuram Village Accounts, G. Sigadam Mandal, Srikakulam District, without following due process of law, is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 19 (1)(g), 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the brick/pottery manufacturing business of the petitioner in the lands to an extent of Ac.1-80 cents out of Ac.2-30 cents in Sy.No.481 to 485 situated at Sarveswarapuram Village Accounts, G. Sigadam Mandal, Srikakulam District, except in accordance with law, by removing the seizure notice flexi affixed on the bricks lying in the above mentioned lands, and to pass….. 1. 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. 2. 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 3 law and requested to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 3. 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 subject land of the petitioner and such highhanded action of the respondents would amount to depriving the petitioner 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 possession is illegal, still, the petitioner is 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 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 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 the 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 miscellaneous application, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 17.07.2025 kkllkk 5 245 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 3573 of 2025 17.07.2025 kkllkk 6