APHC010108902025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] MONDAY ,THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 5449/2025 Between: Mudi Manikanta ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M RAVINDRA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENAKTESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO.5449 OF 2025 This Court made the following: ORDER: 1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in trying to lay road without initiating any land acquisition proceedings under Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation ailed Resettlement Act, 2013 or any other law for acquisition of petitioner’s agricultural land admeasuring an extent of Ac.1.00 cents in Sy.No.64-1/A, (Old Sy.No.64-1) (New L.P.No.255) of Kalava Konda Village, Tikkavaram Post, Chillakur Mandal, Tirupati District without notices and further trying to evict without following due process of law as illegal arbitrary and violation of fundamental rights and Article 300A of the constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the agricultural land admeasuring an extent of Ac.1.00 cents in Sy.No.64-1/A, (Old Sy.No.64-1) (New L.P.No.255) of Kalava Konda Village, Tikkavaram Post, Chillakur Mandal, Tirupati District without following due process of law and to pass” 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 dispossess the petitioner from his land, without following due process of law. 3 3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, admitted that the petitioner is continuing in possession of his land and the respondents authorities would follow due process of law and requested to pass appropriate orders. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the petitioner is absolute owner, possessor and enjoyer of the agricultural land admeasuring an extent of Ac.1.00 cents in Sy.No.64-1/A, (Old Sy.No.64- 1) (New L.P.No.255) of Kalava Konda Village, Tikkavaram Post, Chillakur Mandal, Tirupati District. Petitioner’s father purchased the subject land for a total sale consideration of Rs.15,000/- from U. Nageswaramma, W/o Late Venkata Subbiah, R/o Kalava Konda Village, Tikkavaram Post, Chillakur Mandal, Tirupathi District on 07.02.1998. Since 07.02.1998, petitioner’s father was in continuous peaceful possession and enjoyment over the subject land without any disturbance and interruption from any person or authority. The petitioner and his family have been cultivating the said land by raising different crops. After demise of petitioner’s father on 24.08.2005, the petitioner and his family members are jointly in possession and enjoyment till date. 5. While things stood thus, surprisingly after more than two and half decades, the Respondents 4 to 6 without there being any right and authority highhandedly trying to lay road through the petitioner’s land 4 admeasuring Ac.1.00 cents. Respondents herein never issued any notices much less U/s 26 of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 to the petitioner or his family members. The respondents 4 to 6 without acquiring petitioner’s land by following due process of law straight away visiting subject land and threatening to depart petitioner and his family members from the land and trying to lay the road though cultivation is being carried over the land since long period by saying that there is bandi bata and the Respondent Nos.4 to 6 started laying near to petitioner’s land. Hence the Writ Petition. 6. 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 petitioner 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 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 Rame Gowda (dead) by L.Rs. v. M.Varadappa Naidu (Dead) by L.Rs.1, when the 1 2004 (1) SCC 769 5 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 dispossess the petitioner from his property, except by due process of law. 7. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of, with the consent of both the counsel. No costs. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ______________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA 03.03.2025 krk 6 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA W.P.No.5449 of 2025 03.03.2025 krk