Date of reserved for orders : Date of pronouncement : 02.07.2026 Date of uploading : APHC010317422026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] THURSDAY, THE 2nd DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 16866/2026 Between: 1. KUMILI VENKATA BALA KRISHNA, S/O APPALA RAMUDU, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, RESIDENT OF D. NO.1-77, BACKSIDE OF P.M PALEM POLICE STATION, P.M. PALEM, VISAKHAPATANAM-530041. 2. KUMILI SUDHA MAHESWARI, W/O K.V.BALA KRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, RESIDENT OF D.NO.1-77, BACKSIDE OF P.M PALEM POLICE STATION, P.M. PALEM, VISAKHAPATANAM-530041. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THESTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOUSING AND I AND PR DEPARTMENT, SECRATARIAT BUILDING, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI-522503. 2. A P STATE HOUSING BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE CHAIRMAN AND HOUSING COMMISSIONER, DOOR NO.521, PRASADAMPADU, VIJAYAWADA-522001. 3. ANDHRA PRADESH HOUSING BOARD, REPRESENTED BY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY, 15-5- 2 13, HB COLONY, VISAKHAPATNAM-530022. ...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 a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in threatening to dispossess the petitioners from possession and enjoyment of car shed in an extent of 100 Sq yards in Sy No. 25/2 of Pothinamallayyapalem Village with electricity service connection No. 116597P017003763 situated towards eastern side and opposite to petitioners' residential building bearing D.No. 1-77, backside of P.M.Palem Police station, P.M.Palem, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Article 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and against the Principles of Natural Justice and be pleased to pass 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 to grant stay of dispossession of petitioners from petitioners' car shed situated in an extent of 100 Sq yards in Sy No. 25/2 of Pothinamallayyapalem Village with electricity service connection No. 11 6597P01 7003763 situated towards eastern side and opposite to petitioners' residential building bearing D.No. 1-77, backside of P.M.Palem Police station, P.M.Palem, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. T V SRI DEVI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOUSING The Court made the following: 3 ORDER: To declare the action of the 3rd respondent in threatening to dispossess the petitioners from the land in an extent of 100 sq.yards in Sy.No.25/2 of Pothinamallayyapalem Village with electricity connection service No.116597P017003763 situated towards the eastern side and opposite to petitioner’s residential building bearing D.No.1-77 backside of P.M.Palem Police Station, P.M.Palem, Visakhapatnam District, as illegal and arbitrary, the present writ petition is filed. 2. Heard Smt.T.V.Sridevi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Y.V.Srinivasan, learned Standing Counsel for A.P. Housing Board for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition contended that the petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of the subject property and paying electricity charges regularly. While so, since 18.06.2026, the respondents are threatening the petitioners to dispossess them from the subject land, without issuing any notice. She further submitted that if the said action is allowed to materialize, it affects the rights of the petitioners, as such, prayed to pass appropriate orders protecting the interest of the petitioners. 4 4. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel submitted that the petitioners are encroachers and they have no right over the subject property. He further submitted that the respondents have an intention to take steps in accordance with law, accordingly, prayed to pass appropriate orders. 5. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 6. It is not in dispute that the petitioners are in possession of the subject land. The respondents are threatening to dispossess them from the subject land is the grievance of the petitioners. The contention of the respondents is that the petitioners are encroachers, however, they would follow law. This Court is not inclined to go into the aspect as to whether the subject land belongs to the petitioners or the Housing board. However, as the respondents have an intention to follow law, there is no purpose in keeping the writ petition pending, as such, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition by passing the following order: “The respondents are directed not to interfere with the subject property expect under due process of law.” 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 5 As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date: 02nd July, 2026 RKS Whether the order is: Speaking Reasoned Reportable Non-reportable