APHC010103862025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] TUESDAY ,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 5262/2025 Between: Naga Venkateswara Rao ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. J RAVI KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. NIMMAGADDA REVATHI The Court made the following ORDER: 1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India seeking the following reliefs:- “to issue order direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declare the action of respondents in not taking action on the complaint made by the petitioner on 21.02.2025 to the 2nd respondent against the 3, 4 and 5th respondents for their one sided action to create path way from my fields situated in R S No 220/5 and 220/6 an extent of Ac.2.00 and 2.00 cents situated at guravaiahgudem, T. Narasapuram Mandal, Eluru District to the Uppalapati Someswara rao who is at present using Kalidindi Ramachandra Raju’s land for agress and ingress 2 into his land for the past several years as illegal arbitrary and violative of Article 14 Article 21 and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to take action on the complaint given on Dated 21.02.2025 (2) To direct the 1st respondent to evolve a system so that the complaint should reach the concerned authorities in less than 24 hours so that the concerned authorities know about the grievance and pass such other order.” 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of the subject land by virtue of 'D' Patta granted in his favor approximately 30 years ago, admeasuring to an extent of Ac.2.00 cents and Ac.2.00 cents in RS.No.220/5 and 220/6 situated at Guravaiahgudem, T. Narasapuram Mandal, Eluru District and the petitioner has been cultivating the subject land since then. However, respondents No.3 to 5 are trying to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner’s subject land by creating a pathway through the petitioner’s land for ingress and egress. For which, the petitioner submitted a representation/complaint to the respondent No.2. Despite receiving the representation/complaint of the petitioner, the respondents’ authorities neither considered nor replied. Hence, the present Writ Petition. 3 . Learned Government Pleader for revenue appearing for the respondents furnished written instructions dated 04.03.2025, wherein it is stated as follows: (i) “It is further submitted that the petitioner filed a PGRS application dated 21.02.2025 stating that the 6th respondent making efforts to annex his agriculture 3 property by surveying the lands. There are no such efforts are noticed during the above. The petitioner is in possession of his own land. No such order/directions was issue by the respondent. The petitioner filed the above application on 21.02.2025 which has an SLA period of 60 days for disposal. But the petitioner without giving any breathing space to the official respondents herein and not waiting for the expiry of the SLA period, filed this writ petition on 28.02.2025 without any proofs or evidences but with pure allegations only. (ii) It is further submitted that the said PGRS grievance of the petitioner dated 21.02.2025 will be enquire and proper endorsement will be issued to the petitioner after providing him an opportunity of hearing”. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents. 5. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents and on perusal of the material placed on record, this Court is of the considered opinion the present Writ Petition can be disposed of directing the respondents to consider the representation/complaint of the petitioner dated 21.02.2025 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Even assuming for a moment that this petitioner’s 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 4 “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 subject property subject property of the petitioner without following due process of law as contemplated under Act. 6. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel miscellaneous application, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 18.03.2025 kkllkk 1 2004 (1) SCC 769 5 438 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 5262 of 2025 18.03.2025 kkllkk