APHC010109302025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] MONDAY ,THE TENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 5674/2025 Between: A Muragaiah ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. VMR LEGAL Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: 2 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 5674/2025 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 the respondents in highhandedly interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over his private lands upto an extent of 200 Sq. yards - Plot No.4 in Sy.No.31/1A, in No.8 Mangalam Village Accounts, Tirupathi Urban Mandal, Renigunta Sub-District, Tirupathi District, without affording a reasonable opportunity or assigning any valid reasons (“Impugned Action”) as per se illegal, manifestly arbitrary, unreasonable, irrational, perverse, unfair, biased, preposterous, whimsical, capricious, unconscionable, unconstitutional besides being violative of Principles of Natural Justice besides being opposed to the very spirit and object of Justice and Fair-play and Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Article 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and for a consequential direction not to interfere with the peaceful possession of the petitioner in the said land and pass such other order.” 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property, having acquired the same through a registered sale deed dated 24.09.2004. He further submits that the Tirupathi Urban Development Authority had proposed widening of the Karkambbadi 3 Road. In pursuance of the same, the subject land was acquired and an award dated 20.01.1990 was passed in favour of the vendor of the petitioner. Now, the petitioner started construction of the house in the subject property. While so, respondent Nos.4 and 5 have forcefully stopped the construction. The petitioner approached the respondents and clarified the title of the petitioner. But without considering the same, the respondents threatening the petitioner to vacate the subject land. Hence, the present Writ Petition. 4. Learned Government Pleader for the respondents submits that if the respondent authority intent to interfere or dispossess the petitioner from the subject property, they will follow due process of law. 5. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents and on perusal of the material placed on record, it is observed that when the petitioner is in settled possession and enjoyment of the property, he 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, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition directing the respondents not to interfere with the petitioner’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the 1 2004 (1) SCC 769 4 subject property, if the petitioner is in possession of the subject property, without due process of law. 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 10.03.2025 TTPPSS 5 120 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 5674 of 2025 10.03.2025 TTPPSS