APHC010106352025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 7482/2025 Between: D Sumati Bai ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. AVANIJA INUGANTI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME 2. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: 2 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 7482/2025 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 action of official respondents in interfering with peaceful possession of petitioner’s property admeasuring to an extent of 122.2 sq yards situated in Sy.No.15, Dharmavaram Village, Sri Satya Sai District, Andhra Pradesh and threatening to demolish temporary structure in the premises without following due process of law is illegal, manifestly, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, unreasonable and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and to consequently direct respondent Nos.1 to 8 not to interfere with Petitioner’s possession of subject property and not to demolish the temporary shed without following due process of law and pass such other order.” 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 interfere with the petitioner’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property and not to demolish the temporary shed without following due process of law. 3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents furnished written instructions dated 03.03.2025, wherein it is stated as follows: “In this connection, I submit that, the writ petitioner’s issue is purely a civil dispute in nature. The registrations took place over the site in question is overlapped. Without approved layouts the sellers sold out at their 3 whims and fancies. The petitioner and the other purchasers have to approach the civil court and seek redressal of the civil court. We have no any intention to demolish the temporary shed erected by the writ petitioner. Only to enquire the representation received from the A.P. State S.T. Commission, to know the facts field visit and enquiry was conducted.” 4. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the written instructions submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents, it is observed that when the petitioner is in settled possession and enjoyment of the property, she cannot be dispossessed, without following due process of law 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”. Therefore, if the petitioner is in possession of the subject property, the respondents are directed not to demolish the temporary shed and not to interfere with the petitioner’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property, except by following due process of law. 5. With the above direction, 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 25.03.2025 TTPPSS 1 2004 (1) SCC 769 4 216 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO:7482 of 2025 25.03.2025 TTPPSS