Disposed¶33

Basa Apparao v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC18 Mar 2025WP/6520/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

settled possession; dispossession; due process of law; writ of mandamus; Article 226; Article 14; Article 21; Article 300-A; principles of natural justice; APIIC; Visakhapatnam; Gajuwaka; Tungalam Village; Sy.No.51/2; trade license TL/06204/2018; Rame Gowda v. Varadappa Naidu; 2004 (1) SCC 769; non-interference with peaceful possession; no costs; miscellaneous application closed

What did the court decide?

Direction that, if the petitioner is in possession of the subject property, the respondents shall not interfere with his peaceful possession and enjoyment except by following due process of law; no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous applications closed. ¶33

Basa Apparao Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶33

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, said to be in settled possession and enjoyment of the subject property, can be dispossessed by the respondents otherwise than by following due process of law.

¶27

Court's answer

When 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.

¶32

Ratio / Principle

If the petitioner is in possession of the subject property, the respondents are directed not to interfere with his peaceful possession and enjoyment thereof, except by following due process of law.

¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Andhra Pradesh High Court at Amaravati (Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda, J.), 19.03.2025 — Writ Petition No. 6520/2025 (Basa Apparao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others). Writ petition under Article 226 seeking a writ of Mandamus against the respondents' action of resorting to dispossess the petitioner from his residential house and shop (150 sq. yds. in Sy.No.51/2, Tungalam Village, Gajuwaka Manda, Visakhapatnam District; shops covered by trade license TL/06204/2018), alleging violation of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and of natural justice. Counsel did not touch the merits and sought only a direction that the petitioner not be dispossessed without due process; the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue stated that due process would be followed, and the learned Standing Counsel for the APIIC (Ms. Santhi Chandra) filed written instructions that APIIC officials had neither visited the petitioner's house nor demanded vacation. Relying on the law declared by the Supreme Court in Rame Gowda (dead) by L.Rs. v. M.Varadappa Naidu (Dead) by L.Rs., 2004 (1) SCC 769, the Court held that a person in settled possession and enjoyment of property cannot be dispossessed without due process of law, and directed that, if the petitioner is in possession, the respondents shall not interfere with his peaceful possession and enjoyment except by following due process of law. Writ petition disposed of with the above direction; no order as to costs; miscellaneous application(s) closed.

¶1

APHC010129942025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

[3329]

¶5

WEDNESDAY ,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 6520/2025

Between:

Basa Apparao

...PETITIONER

AND

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others

¶13

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶14

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶15

1.V V SATISH

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶17

1.GP FOR ROADS BUILDINGS

¶18

2.GP FOR REVENUE

¶19

The Court made the following:

¶20

¶21

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶22

WRIT PETITION NO: 6520/2025

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

¶25

of the India seeking the following reliefs:-

¶26

“to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in resorting to dispossess the petitioner from his residential house and shop is illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India besides violation of principles of natural justice and to consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the petitioner’s house property situated in an extent of 150 sq. yds. in Sy.No.51/2 of Tungalam Village, Gajuwaka Manda, Visakhapatnam District and shops covered by trade license TL/06204/2018 and pass such other order.”

¶27

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 the subject property without following due process of law.

¶28

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue submits that, if the petitioner is in possession of the subject property, the respondents would follow due process of law and requested to pass appropriate orders.

¶29

Ms.Santhi Chandra, learned Standing Counsel for the APIIC furnished written instructions, wherein it is stated that the APIIC officials

¶30

¶31

has neither visited the petitioner house nor demanded to vacate the subject premises.

¶32

Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for revenue and on perusal of the written instructions furnished by the learned Standing Counsel for the APIIC, it is observed that 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 interfere with the petitioner’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property, except by following due process of law.

¶33