1 APHC010607162014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] MONDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 23259/2014 Between: 1. VINJAM SAROJANAMMA,, W/O. LATE RAMAKRISHNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 2-245, KOLAGANI RAMAIAH CHOULTRY, JAGANNADHARAOPET, ATMAKUR VILLAGE AND MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL, SECRETARY, ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, HYDERABAD. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 3. SRI KOLAGANI RAMAIAH CHOULTRY, REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ENDOWMENTS, ATMAKUR VILLAGE AND MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 an appropriate writ or order or direction more 2 particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Notice dt. 07.08.2014 issued by the 3rd respondent to evict the petitioner from the D.No. 2-245, Kolagani Ramaiah Choultry, Jagannadharaopet, Atmakur Village and Mandal, SPSR Nellore District, as unjust, arbitrary, illegal besides violation of principles of natural justice and Articles 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the D.No. 2-245, Kolagani Ramaiah Choultry, Jagannadharaopet, Atmakur Village and Mandal, SPSR Nellore District and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. RAVI KUMAR PONAKAMPALLI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. M SRINIVASA RAO 2. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS (AP) 3. DEVI SUBHASHINI ANNE SC For Endowments 3 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA W.P.No.23259 of 2014 This Court made the following ORDER: None appeared for the petitioner on 09.02.2026. Even today when the matter is posted under the caption “for dismissal”, there is no representation for the petitioner. 2. Learned Standing Counsel for Respondent submits that the petitioner is no more and son-in-law of the petitioner is in occupation of the subject property. 3. Heard learned Standing Counsel for Endowments and perused the material placed on record. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that without following due process of law, the respondent authorities are trying to evict the petitioner from the D.No.2-245, Kolagani Ramaiah Choultry, Jagannadharaopet, Atmakur Village and Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. 5. 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 4 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 or his LRs is in settled possession and enjoyment of the property, she or her LRs cannot be dispossessed, without following due process of law. Therefore, the respondents are directed not to dispossess the petitioner’s son-in-law from his property, except by due process of law. 6. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J DT: 16.02.2026 krk 1 2004 (1) SCC 769 5 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA W.P.No.23259 of 2014 DT: 16.02.2026 krk 93