Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
G Kumadanadhan vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 3 March, 2025
APHC010107782025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA
PRADESH
[3329]
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA
WRIT PETITION NO: 5432/2025
Between:
G Kumadanadhan and Others ...PETITIONER(S)
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. SRINIVAS AMBATI
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR REVENUE
2
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VENAKTESWARLU NIMMAGADDA
WRIT PETITION NO.5432 OF 2025
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 one in
the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of
the 4TH respondent in interfering with the 3RD petitioner
peaceful possession and enjoyment of land admeasuring
Ac. 1.06 cents in Survey No. 321/2 situated in
Govindavaram Village, Vikrutamala Revenue Village,
Yerpedu Mandal, Tirupati District and further threatening to
remove the name of the 3RD petitioner’s grandfather from
revenue records without following any known procedure
established by law as illegal irregular irrational violative of
principles of natural justice and offends Articles 14 21 and
300A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the
4TH respondent not to interfere with 3RD petitioner’s
peaceful possession and enjoyment of above said land by
changing the revenue records and pass.”
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 3rd petitioner from his land, without
following due process of law.
3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, admitted that
the 3rd petitioner is continuing in possession of his land and the
3
respondents authorities would follow due process of law and requested to
pass appropriate orders.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submits that the 3rd
petitioner is abslute owner, possessor and enjoyer of the subject land to
an extent of Ac.1.06 in Sy.No.321/2 situated at Govindavaram Village,
Vikrutamala Revenue Village, Yerpedu Mandal, Tirupati District.
Originally, the said land was purchased by the 1st and 2nd petitioners’
father by name Gali Srinivasulu Naidu, S/o Venkatarama Naidu from his
vendors by way of registred sale deed vide Doc.No.3817/1971, dated
01.11.1971. Thereafter, the revenue officials granted pattadar passbooks
and mutated his name in relevant revenue records. Petitioner’s
grandfather during his lifetime settled the said property in favour of his
children by way of registered partition deed vide Doc.No.1767/2006,
dated 27.10.2006. Through the partition, the subject land fell to the share
of 2nd petitioner and one of his brothers by name Gali Suresh equally.
5. It is submitted that after the death of aforementioned Gali Suresh,
his share of the property is acquired by his mother Gali Lakshmi Devi,
W/o Late G. Srinivasulu Naidu. Thereafter, the 2nd petitioner herein and
the family members gifted the subject land to the 3rd petitioner herein on
16.12.2020. Since then the 3rd petitioner has been in continuous
4
possession and enjoyment of the same without interruption from anybody
at any point of time.
6. It is further submitted that while things stood thus, the 4th
respondent and his office staff interfered with the peaceful possession of
the 3rd petitioner subject land on 28.02.2025 and threatened him to
vacate the said land and further threatened him that they would change
the revenue records pertaining to the subject land. Hence the Writ
Petition.
7. When the 3rd petitioner is in settled possession and enjoyment of
the property, the respondents are not entitled to interfere with the
possession and enjoyment of the 3rd 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, he cannot be dispossessed, without following due process of
1
2004 (1) SCC 769
5
law. Therefore, the respondents are directed not to dispossess the 3rd
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.
The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand
closed.
______________________________________
JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA
03.03.2025
NOTE: Issue CC by 05.03.2025
(B/o)
krk
6
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA
W.P.No.5432 of 2025
03.03.2025
krk
