KAVALI RAMAYYA NAIDU v. THE STATE OF AP
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 s. 151
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel miscellaneous application, pending, if any, shall also stand closed.
Judgment
Cause title
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 interfere with the petitioners’ peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject properties of an extent of Ac.2.69 cents each (for Petitioner Nos. 2 & 4) situated in Sy.No.221/2 and an extent of Ac.0.53 cents each (for Petitioner Nos. 1 & 3) in Sy.No.219/12 of Matampalli Village, K.V Palle Mandal, Annamayya District, Erstwhile Chittoor District, pending disposal of the Writ petition before this Hon’ble court, and Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. SURESH KUMAR REDDY KALAVA Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: 3 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA
WRIT PETITION NO: 16917/2025
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India seeking the following reliefs:-
to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents herein particularly respondent No.3 in highhandedly interfering and threatening to dispossess the petitioners from the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the properties of an extent of Ac.2.69 cents each (for Petitioner Nos.2 and 4) situated in Sy.No.221/2 and an extent of Ac.0.53 cents each (for Petitioner Nos.1 and 3) in Sy.No.219/12 of Matampalli Village, K.V Palle Mandal, Annamayya District, Erstwhile Chittoor District, each respectively, without issuing any notice or opportunity of personal hearing or following the due process of law is questioned as the same is arbitrary, illegal, contrary to the well-established legal principles apart from being violative of fundamental and constitutional rights guaranteed under articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents, not to interfere with the petitioners peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject properties and pass such other order.
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 interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners’ subject property without following due process of law. 4
Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue submits that, if the petitioners are in possession of the subject property, the respondents would follow due process of law.
Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents, it is observed that when the petitioners are in settled possession and enjoyment of the subject 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 L.Rs. v. M.Varadappa Naidu (Dead) by L.Rs.1”. Therefore, if the petitioners are in possession of the subject property, respondents are directed not to interfere with the petitioners’ peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property, except by following due process of law.
Operative part
With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel miscellaneous application, pending, if any, shall also stand closed.
0088..0077..22002255 TTPPSS 1 2004 (1) SCC 769 ________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 5 225 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO:16917 of 2025
0088..0077..22002255 TTPPSS
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 151.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 08 Jul 2025. The bench was VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.