Chevireddy Sarala, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

CHEVIREDDY SARALA,, W/O. LATE. C. MUNI VENKATA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCC- CULTIVATION, R/O. D. NO. 2-130, CHAVIDI STREET, PERURU VILLAGE, TIRUPATI RURAL MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶10

CHEVIREDDY MADHULATHA,, D/O. LATE. C. CHENGAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/O. 8-165/1, NEW BALAJI COLONY, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶11

CHEVIREDDY AJITHA,, W/O. CHEVIREDDY ARUNCHALA KUMAR REDDY, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/O. 2-129/1, PERURU VILLAGE, TIRUPATI RURAL MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶12

...PETITIONER(S)

¶13

AND

¶14

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶15

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR PANCHAYAT RAJ, TIRUPATI DISTRICT, TIRUPATI.

¶16

THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICER, TIRUPATI DISTRICT, TIRUPATI.

¶17

THE MANDAL PRAJA PARISHAD DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, TIRUPATI RURAL MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT.

¶18

THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, PERURU GRAM PANCHAYAT SACHIVALAYAM-I, TIRUPATI RURAL MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT.

¶19

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶20

2

¶21

NV,J W.P No.449 of 2025

¶22

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 tomay be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 5th respondent and their authorities, without issuing any notice to the petitioner, without following due process of law, trying to interfering in the petitioners land an extent of Ac. 0.20 cents out of Ac. 1.51 cents in Sy. No. 538/A situated in No. 53 Peruru Village Accounts, Peruru Grama Panchayat, Tirupati Rural Mandal, Tirupati District is illegal, arbitrary, unjust, unreasonable, violation of the Principles of Natural Justice and violation of the Andhra Pradesh Grama Panchayat Act, 1964 and violation of Article 14,19,21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents and their authorities not to interfere in the petitioners subject land an extent of Ac. 0.20 cents out of Ac. 1.51 cents in Sy. No. 538/A situated in No. 53 Peruru Village Accounts, Peruru Grama Panchayat, Tirupati Rural Mandal, Tirupati District and to pass

¶23

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶24

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 may be pleased to direct the respondent nos. 3 to 5 and their authorities not to interfere in the petitioners subject land an extent of Ac. 0.20 cents out of Ac. 1.51 cents in Sy. No. 538/A situated in No. 53 Peruru Village Accounts, Peruru Grama Panchayat, Tirupati Rural Mandal, Tirupati District, pending disposal of the writ petition and to pas

¶25

IA NO: 2 OF 2025

¶26

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 extend the interim orders passed on 08.01.2025 in I.A. No. 01 of 2025in W.P. No. 449 of 2025 and pass

¶27

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶28

1.CHAMARTHY LEELA SRINNIVASA VARMA

¶29

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶30

1.GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV

¶31

2.Mattegunta.Sudhir,Standing Counsel For Z.P.Ps,M.P.Ps,Gram Panchayats

¶32

The Court made the following:

¶33

3

¶34

NV,J W.P No.449 of 2025

¶35

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶36

WRIT PETITION NO.449 OF 2025

¶37

ORDER:-

¶38

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

¶39

India claiming the following relief:

¶40

“To issue writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 5^th respondent and their authorities without issuing any notice to the petitioner, without following due process of law, trying to interfere in the petitioners land of an extent of Ac.0-20 cents out of Ac.1-51 cents in Sy.No.538/A situated in No.53 Peruru Village Accounts, Peruru Grama Panchayat, Tirupati Rural Mandal, Tirupati District, as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of principles of natural justice and violative of the Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayat Act, 1964 and violative of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents and their authorities not to interfere in the petitioners subject land of an extent of Ac.0-20 cents out of Ac.1-51 cents in Sy.No.538/A situated in No.53 Peruru Village Accounts, Peruru Grama Panchayat, Tirupati Rural Mandal, Tirupati District.”

¶41

The petitioners are owners, possessors and enjoyers of land of an extent of Ac.0-20 cents out of Ac.1-51 cents in Sy.No.538/A situated in No.53 Peruru Village Accounts, Peruru Grama Panchayat, Tirupati Rural Mandal, Tirupati District. The petitioners were in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject land without any interruption whatsoever. The petitioners submits that, the respondents are trying to interfere into the

¶42

4

¶43

NV,J W.P No.449 of 2025

¶44

peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners subject land. Questioning the action of the respondents, the present writ petition is filed.

¶45

During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners, without touching the merits of the case, requested this Court to issue a direction to the respondents not to dispossess the petitioners from their land without following due process of law.

¶46

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue placed on record written instructions dated 19.04.2025 furnished by the Panchayat Secretary, Peruru Grama Panchayat, Tirupati Rural Mandal, wherein it is stated that the respondents are not interfering with the property of the petitioner in Sy.No.538/A situated in Peruru Village, Tirupati Rural mandal, Tirupati District and the respondents did not issue any notice to the petitioner and not taking steps to dispossess from the property in question. On the basis of the written instructions, learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that, in the event the respondents proposes to evict the petitioners, the respondents would follow due process of law and requested to pass appropriate orders.

¶47

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

¶48

5

¶49

NV,J W.P No.449 of 2025

¶50

When the petitioners are in settled possession and enjoyment of the property, they cannot be dispossessed, without following due process of law in view of the law declared by the Apex Court in “ Rame Gowda (dead) by

¶51

L.Rs. v. M.Varadappa Naidu (Dead) by L.Rs.¹ ”. Therefore, if the petitioners are in possession of the subject property, the respondents are directed not to dispossess the petitioners from the subject property, except by due process of law.

¶52