::1:: APHC010225902014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] TUESDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NOs: 36860/2014 & 1 of 2015 W.P.No.36860 of 2014 Between: 1. P. NAGESWARA PRASAD,, S/O LATE BULLAYYA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/A D. NO. 37-10-197, AYYAPPA NAGAR, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE POST, VISAKHAPATNAM. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (ENDOWMENTS) SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, HYDERABAD. 2. SRI VARAHA LAKSHMI NARASIMHA SWAMY VARI, DEVASTHANAM SIMHACHALAM, REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SIMHACHALAM, VISAKHAPATNAM 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 toto issue a Writ Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus declaring ::2:: the action of the 2nd respondent in interfering and trying to demolish the petitioner's property situated at house bearing No. 37-10-197, Ayyappa Nagar, Industrial Estate Post, Visakhapatnam in an extent of 200 sq. yards in sy. No. 12 situated at Kapparada village, Visakhapatnam as illegal, arbitrary unconstitutional and violative of the principals of natural justice and contrary to the Article 300(a) of the Constitution of India, consequently direct the 2nd respondent not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner's property situated at house bearing No. 37-10-197, Ayyappa Nagar, Industrial Estate Post, Visakhapatnam in an extent of 200 sq. yards in sy. No. 12 situated at Kapparada village, Visakhapatnam pending disposal of the above writ petition. W.P.No.1 of 2015 Between: 1. KARRI JAYALAKSHMI,, W/O LATE K.JANARDHANA RAO AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/A D.NO.39-2-15/2, KRISHNA RESIDENCY, MURALI NAGAR EAST, VISAKHAPATNAM ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (ENDOWMENTS) SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, HYDERABAD 2. SRI VARAHA LAKSHMI NARASIMHA SWAMY VARI DEVASTHANAM, SIMHACHALAM, REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SIMHACHALAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT 3. THE GREATER VISAKHAPATNAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER, VISAKHAPATNAM ...RESPONDENT(S): ::3:: 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 toto issue a Writ Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in interfering and trying to demolish the petitioner's property situated in an extent of 250 Sq. yards in Survey No.12 at Kapparada village, Visakhapatnam as illegal, arbitrary unconstitutional and violative of the principals of natural justice and contrary to the Article 300(a) of the Constitution of India, consequently direct the 2nd respondent not raise the compound wall in front of the petitioner's property situated in an extent of 250 Sq. yards in Survey No.12 at Kapparada village, Visakhapatnam pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. A S C BOSE Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS (AP) 2 3.. E SAMBASIVA PRATAP T. SRIKANTH REDDY ::4:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA W.P.Nos.36860 of 2014 and 1 of 2015 Since the issue involved in both the writ petitions is one and the same, this Court is inclined to pass this common order and the facts are being referred to from W.P.No.36860 of 2014 for the sake of convenience and brevity COMMON ORDER: W.P.No.36860 of 2014 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 the nature of Writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in interfering and trying to demolish the petitioners property situated at house bearing No 37-10-197, Ayyappa Nagar, Industrial Estate Post, Visakhapatnam in an extent of 200 sq yards in Sy.No.12 situated at Kapparada village, Visakhapatnam as illegal arbitrary unconstitutional and violative of the principals of natural justice and contrary to the Article 300(A) of the Constitution of India consequently direct the 2nd respondent not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners property situated at house bearing No 37-10-197, Ayyappa Nagar, Industrial Estate Post Visakhapatnam in an extent of 200 sq yards in Sy No.12 situated at Kapparada village Visakhapatnam pending disposal of the above writ petition= 2. During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner, without touching the merits of the case, requested this Court to issue a ::5:: direction to the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from his land, without following due process of law. 3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Respondents, admitted that if the petitioner is continuing in the possession of subject land, 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 house bearing No.37-10-197, Ayyappa Nagar, Industrial Estate Post, Visakhapatnam in an extent of 200 Sq. Yds situated at Sy.No.12, Kapparada Village, Visakhapatnam having purchased the same from his vendor namely Kolli Venkata Rao, by way of unregistered sale deed dated 13.03.1997. Since then the petitioner has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment in the above said property by raising RCC slabbed house. 5. While things stood thus the staff and officials of the 2nd respondent came to the property and highhandedly demolished a portion of building wall of the petitioner’s house by stating that the land belongs to the 2nd Respondent-Devastanam and they are going to construct compound wall in the entire 30 feet road by demolishing the house of the petitioner as well as other adjacent ::6:: owners. Aggrieved by the action of the Respondent Authorities the present Writ Petition is being filed. 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 petitioners and such highhanded action of the respondents would amount to depriving the petitioners’ 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 petitioners’ possession in both the Writ Petitions is illegal, still, the petitioners are 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 petitioners are in settled possession and enjoyment of the property, they cannot be dispossessed, without following due process of law. Therefore, the respondents are directed not to dispossess the petitioners from their property, except by due process of law. 1 2004 (1) SCC 769 ::7:: 7. With the above direction, the writ petitions are disposed of, with the consent of both the counsel. No costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. _________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J DT: 10.02.2026 krk ::8:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA W.P.Nos.36860 of 2014 and 1 of 2015 DT: 10.02.2026 krk 103