::1:: APHC010058202026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] THURSDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 4200/2026 Between: 1. PALLA SATYAVATHI,, W/O PALLA KUMARA SWAMY, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/O H.NO 3-1, VARALAKSHMI NAGAR, WARD NO 70, VEPAGUNTA, VISAKHAPATNAM - 530047 ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE (ENDOWMENTS) DEPT., SECRETARIAT, AMARAVATI.522237 2. SRI VARAHA LAKSHMI NARASIMHA SWAMY DEVASTHANAM, REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER SIMHACHALAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 530028 3. THE MANDAL REVENUE OFFICER TAHSILDAR, PENDURTHI MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 531173 ...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 to issue a writ, order, or direction, more particularly a Writ of Mandamus, questioning the action of respondent No.2, in interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land situated in the Sy. No.24/3D2, of Cheemalapalli Village, Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhapatnam District without initiating any proceedings as per due process of law, as illegal, void, and unconstitutional as illegal, arbitrary, and a violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-Aof the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents to follow due process of law Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K KEDHARNATH CHOWDARY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS ::3:: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENAKTESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION No.4200 of 2026 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 a Writ of Mandamus, questioning the action of respondent No.2, in interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land situated in the Sy.No.24/3D2, of Cheemalapalli Village, Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhapatnam District without initiating any proceedings as per due process of law, as illegal, void, and unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents to follow due process of law...” 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 her land, without following due process of law. ::4:: 3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Respondents, admitted that the petitioner is continuing in the possession of subject 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 the absolute owner of 0.017 Hectares (approx. 200 Sq. Yds) in Sy.No.24/3D2 (old Sy.No.24/342) of Cheemalapalli Village, Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner purchased the subject land through a registered sale deed (Doc.No.1736/1982) and has been in peaceful possession for nearly 42 years. 5. While so, the 2nd respondent’s interference is based on flawed assumption that the land is “Inam.”. However, for land to be treated as Devasthanam property under the A.P. Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956, a Ryotwari Patta must be issued in their favour. Without a valid Patta, the 2nd Respondent has no locus standi to disturb a settled possession. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that it is a well settled principle of law that even if there is a dispute over ::5:: title, a party in settled possession cannot be evicted or harassed except by “due process of law”. He further submits that the 2nd Respondent is attempting to bypass the Revenue Authorities (M.R.O) and use highhanded tactics to interfere with petitioner's possession. Hence the writ petition 6. 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 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 petitioner is in settled possession and enjoyment of the property, she cannot be dispossessed, without following due process of law. Therefore, the respondents are directed not to 1 2004 (1) SCC 769 ::6:: dispossess the petitioner from her 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. As a sequel, interlocutory applications if any pending, shall stand closed. _____________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA 07.05.2026 krk ::7:: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENAKTESWARLU NIMMAGADDA 118 WRIT PETITION No.4200 of 2026 07.05.2026 krk