A person in settled possession of a property cannot be dispossessed by authorities without following the due process of law, as such action violates the constitutional rights guaranteed under Article 300-A and Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

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 any order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents herein in interfering with the petitioners peaceful possession and enjoyment of the house bearing Door No. 10-134 (Old No. 6-5/1), located in Sy. No.140/2 of Vepagunta Village, Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300A of Constitution of India, and contrary to the principles of natural justice, and consequently direct respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession of the the petitioners ongoing construction without following due process of law, and pass such

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

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 Respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property by the petitioner, without following due process of law, and pass such

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. K KEDHARNATH CHOWDARY

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS

The Court made the following:

ORDER:-

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India seeking the following relief:-

“to issue any order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents herein in interfering with the petitioners peaceful possession and enjoyment of the house bearing Door No.10-134 (Old No.6-5/1) located in Sy.No.140/2 of Vepagunta Village, Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhapatnam District as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and contrary to the principles of natural justice and consequently direct respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property of the petitioner without following due process of law and pass such other order or orders...”

The case of the petitioner herein is that the petitioner’s father is the absolute owner and possessor of the house bearing D.No.10-134 (Old No.6-5/1) in Sy.No.140/2 situated at Vepagunta Village, Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhapatnam District having acquired the same through a registered sale deed dated 26.06.1995. After demise of his father, the petitioner and his mother jointly inherited the subject property as the joint legal heirs. Since then, they have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property without there being any interference or hindrance from any quarter.

The further case of the petitioner is that since the said house is in a dilapidated condition, the petitioner recently has attempted to carry out necessary repair works. While so, the respondent No.2 is interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property of the petitioner without following due process of law. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents in interfering with the peaceful position and enjoyment of the subject property of the petitioner, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for the respondents.

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 interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property of the petitioner, without following due process of law.

On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that admittedly, the petitioner is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property and if the respondents intend to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property of the petitioner,