APHC010235492026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] WEDNESDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 13167/2026 Between: 1. VARASALA ABRAHAM, S/O. LATE V. JOHN, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.10-134, WARD-69, DURGA NAGAR, NEAR RELIANCE TOWER, NAIDU THOTA, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY HIS GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, IRRA VENKATA RAMANA, S/O. LATE IRRA KANNAYYA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/O. 10-184, DURGA NAGAR, NEAR RELIANCE TOWER, NAIDU THOTA, VISAKHAPATNAM. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE (ENDOWMENT) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI VILLAGE, TULLUR MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT.522239 2. SRI VARAHA LAKEHMI NARASHIMA SWAMY DEVASTHANAM, REP., BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SIMHACHALAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.530028 3. THE TAHSILDAR MANDAL REVENUE OFFICER, GOPALAPATNAM VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.530027 4. THE GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REP BY SECRETARY VEPAGUNTA VILLAGE, PENDURTHY MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.530047 ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased tomay be pleased to issue any order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents herein in interfering with the petitioners peaceful possession and enjoyment of the house bearing Door No. 10-134 (Old No. 6-5/1), located in Sy. No.140/2 of Vepagunta Village, Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300A of Constitution of India, and contrary to the principles of natural justice, and consequently direct respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession of the the petitioners ongoing construction without following due process of law, and pass such IA NO: 1 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to direct Respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property by the petitioner, without following due process of law, and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K KEDHARNATH CHOWDARY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made the following: 3 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION No.13167 OF 2026 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India seeking the following relief:- “to issue any order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents herein in interfering with the petitioners peaceful possession and enjoyment of the house bearing Door No.10-134 (Old No.6-5/1) located in Sy.No.140/2 of Vepagunta Village, Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhapatnam District as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and contrary to the principles of natural justice and consequently direct respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property of the petitioner without following due process of law and pass such other order or orders...” 2. The case of the petitioner herein is that the petitioner’s father is the absolute owner and possessor of the house bearing D.No.10-134 (Old No.6- 5/1) in Sy.No.140/2 situated at Vepagunta Village, Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhapatnam District having acquired the same through a registered sale deed dated 26.06.1995. After demise of his father, the petitioner and his mother jointly inherited the subject property as the joint legal heirs. Since then, they have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property without there being any interference or hindrance from any quarter. 3. The further case of the petitioner is that since the said house is in a dilapidated condition, the petitioner recently has attempted to carry out necessary repair works. While so, the respondent No.2 is interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property of the petitioner 4 without following due process of law. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents in interfering with the peaceful position and enjoyment of the subject property of the petitioner, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for the respondents. 5. 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 peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property of the petitioner, without following due process of law. 6. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that admittedly, the petitioner is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property and if the respondents intend to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property of the petitioner, the respondents would follow due process of law. 7. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government pleader for the respondents, 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 petitioner and such highhanded action of the respondents would amount to depriving the petitioner’s violating 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 5 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 “RameGowda (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 dispossess the petitioner from his property, except by due process of law. 8. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of, with the consent of both the counsel. No costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition shall stand closed. _________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 06.05.2026 BSP 12004 (1) SCC 769 6 173 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION No.13167 of 2026 06.05.2026 BSP