Disposed¶45

A S D Prasad v. Pedakakani Gram Panchayat

Andhra Pradesh HC20 Jul 2025WP/1716/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Settled possession; dispossession only by due process of law; proposed demolition of petitioner's building by Gram Panchayat; notice of demolition after two days; writ of mandamus under Article 226, Constitution of India; Articles 14 and 21 invoked; Section 151 CPC interim application; reliance on Rame Gowda (dead) by L.Rs. v. M. Varadappa Naidu (Dead) by L.Rs., 2004 (1) SCC 769; Pedakakani Village/Pedakakani Mandal, Guntur District; writ petition disposed of with consent of counsel; no costs; miscellaneous petitions closed.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the subject property except by due process of law; writ petition disposed of with the consent of both counsel, no costs; miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, stood closed. ¶45

A S D Prasad Vs Pedakakani Gram Panchayat — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶45

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, who claims settled possession and enjoyment of the subject property, can be dispossessed or his building demolished otherwise than by following due process of law.

¶38

Court's answer

Where a person is in settled possession and enjoyment of property, he cannot be dispossessed without following due process of law, 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., 2004 (1) SCC 769.

¶41

Ratio / Principle

Accordingly, if the petitioner is in possession of the subject property, the respondents are directed not to dispossess the petitioner from the subject property, except by due process of law.

¶41

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati (Special Original Jurisdiction), Justice Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda, W.P. No.1716 of 2019, decided 21.07.2025. Petitioner A S D Prasad claimed ownership of a building on 103 sq.yards in D.No.1-139, Pedakakani Village, Guntur District, and challenged the respondents' (Pedakakani Gram Panchayat) proposal to demolish the building after two days as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 21, seeking a writ of mandamus under Article 226 directing that the building not be demolished. At hearing counsel did not touch the merits and sought only a direction that the petitioner not be dispossessed without due process of law; the Assistant Government Pleader submitted that any eviction would follow due process of law. Holding that a person in settled possession and enjoyment of property cannot be dispossessed without due process of law, relying on the law declared by the Apex Court in Rame Gowda (dead) by L.Rs. v. M. Varadappa Naidu (Dead) by L.Rs., 2004 (1) SCC 769, the Court directed the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the subject property except by due process of law, and disposed of the writ petition with the consent of both counsel, imposing no costs and closing miscellaneous petitions.

¶1

APHC010037312019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

[3329]

¶5

MONDAY,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 1716/2019

¶9

Between:

¶10

A S D PRASAD, S/O. RAMAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCCUPATION - BUSINESS, R/O. D.NO.1-46, PATURU, PEDAKAKANI VILLAGE PEDAKAKANI MANDAL. GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

PEDAKAKANI GRAM PANCHAYAT, REP. BY. ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT, VELAGAPUDI GUNTUR DISTRICT

¶14

PEDAKAKANI GRAM PARICHAYAT, PEDAKAKANI VILLAGE, PEDKAKANI MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS SPECIAL OFFICER

¶15

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶16

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 topleased to issue a direction or order more particularly one in the nature of wit of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in proposing to demolish the building of the petitioner in D.No I - 139 of Pedakakani Village and informed to

¶17

¶18

NV,J W.P.No.1716 of 2019

¶19

the petitioner that the building of the petitioner will be demolished after two days is arbitrary and illegal and in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and consequently direct the respondent not to demolish the building of the petitioner in D.No.1139 of Pedakakani Village, Pedakakani Mandal, Guntur District

¶20

IA NO: 1 OF 2019

¶21

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 pleased to direct the respondents not to demolish the building of the petitioner in D.No.1-139 of Pedakakani Village, Pedakakani Mandal, Guntur District, pending disposal of the above writ petition

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶23

1.PRABHU NATH VASIREDDY

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶25

1.G SESHADRI(SC FOR MPP ZPP)

¶26

2.GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV (AP)

¶27

The Court made the following:

¶28

¶29

NV,J W.P.No.1716 of 2019

¶30

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶31

WRIT PETITION No.1716 OF 2019

¶32

ORDER:

¶33

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, claiming the following relief:

¶34

“to issue Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in proposing to demolish the building of the petitioner in D.No 1-139 of Pedakakani Village and informed to the petitioner that the building of the petitioner will be demolished after two days is arbitrary and illegal and in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and consequently direct the respondent not to demolish the building of the petitioner in D.No.1-139 of Pedakakani Village, Pedakakani Mandal, Guntur District.”

¶35

The petitioner claims to be the owner of building situated in D.No.1-139 in an extent of 103 sq.yards in Pedakakani Village, Guntur District. The petitioner is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject land without any interruption whatsoever. The petitioner submits that, the respondents are trying to interfere into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner subject land. Questioning the action of the respondents, the present writ petition is filed.

¶36

¶37

NV,J W.P.No.1716 of 2019

¶38

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 his land without following due process of law.

¶39

Learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that, in the event the respondents propose to evict the petitioner, the respondents would follow due process of law and requested to pass appropriate orders.

¶40

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Revenue and perused the material available on record.

¶41

When the petitioner is in settled possession and enjoyment of the property, he cannot be dispossessed, without following due process of law 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 ”. Therefore, if the petitioner is in possession of the subject property, the respondents are directed not to dispossess the petitioner from the subject property, except by due process of law.

¶42

1 2004 (1) SCC 769

¶43

¶44

NV,J W.P.No.1716 of 2019

¶45