APHC010253292023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No. 13380/2023 BETWEEN: 1. GURRAM NOOKA RAJU, S/o. LATE CHINNAIAH, AGED YEARS, R/o. D.No.1 MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM (ANAKAPALLI) DISTRICT. 2. PITHANA NEELAKANTA RAO, S/o. LATE KANNAIAH, AGED YEARS, R/o. D.No.1 KOTHAPALEM STREET, AGANAMPUDI POST, GAJUWAKA MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 3. GURRAM SATTI BABU, S/o. NOOKA RAJU, AGED R/o. D.No.1-75, THADI VILLAGE, VISAKHAPATNAM (ANAKAPALLI) DISTRICT. 4. SMT. GANGIREDDLA PARAMESWARI, W/o VENKATA RAMANA, AGED LEMARTHY AGRAHARAM STREET, AGANAMPUDI POST, GAJUWAKA MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. Reserved on Pronounced on Uploaded on IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No. 13380/2023 GURRAM NOOKA RAJU, S/o. LATE CHINNAIAH, AGED YEARS, R/o. D.No.1-74, THADI VILLAGE, PARAWADA MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM (ANAKAPALLI) DISTRICT. NEELAKANTA RAO, S/o. LATE KANNAIAH, AGED YEARS, R/o. D.No.1-74, PHARAMA CITY COLONY, KOTHAPALEM STREET, AGANAMPUDI POST, GAJUWAKA MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. GURRAM SATTI BABU, S/o. NOOKA RAJU, AGED- 75, THADI VILLAGE, PARAWADA MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM (ANAKAPALLI) DISTRICT. SMT. GANGIREDDLA PARAMESWARI, W/o VENKATA RAMANA, AGED- 55 YEARS, R/o. PHARAMA CITY COLONY, LEMARTHY AGRAHARAM STREET, AGANAMPUDI POST, GAJUWAKA MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONE Reserved on : 21.04.2026 Pronounced on : 28.04.2026 Uploaded on : 30.04.2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3330] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO GURRAM NOOKA RAJU, S/o. LATE CHINNAIAH, AGED- 63 74, THADI VILLAGE, PARAWADA MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM (ANAKAPALLI) DISTRICT. NEELAKANTA RAO, S/o. LATE KANNAIAH, AGED- 56 74, PHARAMA CITY COLONY, KOTHAPALEM STREET, AGANAMPUDI POST, GAJUWAKA - 39 YEARS, PARAWADA MANDAL, SMT. GANGIREDDLA PARAMESWARI, W/o VENKATA 55 YEARS, R/o. PHARAMA CITY COLONY, LEMARTHY AGRAHARAM STREET, AGANAMPUDI POST, GAJUWAKA MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) 2 AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AIIIARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ANAKAPALLI (ERSTWHILE VISAKHAPATNAM) DISTRICT, ANAKAPALLI. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ANAKAPALLE DIVISION, ANAKAPALLI (ERSTWHILE VISAKHAPATNAM) DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, PARAWADA MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI (ERSTWHILE VISAKHAPATNAM) DISTRICT. 5. ANDHRA PRADESH INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE CORPORATION LIMITED APIIC, SPECIAL PROJECT ZONE, REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY ZONAL MANAGER (AM), ONE STOP SERVICE CENTRE, APSEZ, ATCHUTAPURAM, VISAKHAPATNAM, 6. VISAKHA PHARMACITY LIMITED, (FORMERLY M/S RAMKY PHARMA CITY (INDIA) LTD.) COMMERCIAL HUB, ROAD NO. 13, ADMIN BLOCK, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PHARMA CITY, PARAWADA MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT - 531 019. REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MR. PAKANATI VENKATA RAGHAVA REDDY, S/O PAKANTI PITCHI REDDY OCC DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, VISAKHA PHARMACITY LIMITED, R/O D.NO.4-156/2, 113 THALLURU, NEAR POST OFFICE, PHIRANGIPURAM (MANDAL). GUNTUR (DISTRICT), ANDHRA PRADESH - 522 529. R6 IS IMPLEADED AS PER THE COURT'S ORDER DT.04.11.2025 IN I.A.NO.04 OF 2025. ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction 3 more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the high handed and illegal action on the part of the respondents in attempting to dispossess the petitioners from their possession and enjoyment of their respective properties situated in an extent of Ac.5-00 cents, Ac.3-00 cents, Ac.3-00 cents, and Ac.5-00 cents covered by R.S.No.116 of Thadi Village, Parawada Mandal, Anakapalli (Erstwhile Visakhapatnam) District, without issuing any notice, without conducting any enquiry and without passing any order as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, malafide and against the principles of Natural Justice besides violation of Article 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and to consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners in any manner including their dispossession from the subject properties in the interest of justice and to pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. K JYOTHI PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. SANTHI CHANDRA SC For APIIC 3. N NAVEEN KUMAR The Court made the following: 4 ORDER: The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief: “to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the high handed and illegal action on the part of the respondents in attempting to dispossess the petitioners from their possession and enjoyment of their respective properties situated in an extent of Ac.5-00 cents, Ac.3.00 cents, Ac.3.00 cents, and Ac.5-00 cents covered by R.S.No.116 of Thadi Village, Parawada Mandal, Anakapalli (Erstwhile Visakhapatnam) District, without issuing any notice, without conducting any enquiry and without passing any order as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, malafide and against the principles of Natural Justice besides violation of Article 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and to consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners in any manner including their dispossession from the subject properties in the interest of justice and to pass such other order or orders….” 2. Precisely, the facts that are stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition are that the land in R.S.No.116 situated at Thadi village, Parawada Mandal, Anakapally (Erstwhile Visakhapatnam) District, the ancestors of the petitioners have encroached upon the land to an extent of Ac.5-00 cents, Ac.3-00 cents, Ac.3-00 cents, and Ac.5.00 cents about 35 years ago and the same is in occupation of the petitioners and the said land is in hill slope and the petitioners herein 5 raised cashew nut tope in the land, basing on the yield they sustain their livelihood. During the month of March, 2023, the staff of 5th respondent i.e. Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited (APIIC), after measuring the land stated that they have purchased the land. However, on the protest of the petitioners, the 5th respondent is not able to take possession of the above said survey number land. And it is settled proposition of law that even a trespasser should be evicted under due procedure of law. Hence, the present Writ Petition is filed to direct the respondents not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners in any manner including their dispossession and to declare the action of the respondents as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, malafide and against the principles of natural justice, besides violation of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and prayed not to dispossess the petitioners from the aforesaid survey number land. In order to substantiate their possession, the petitioners herein filed land tax receipts consisting 7 in number. 3. The 4th respondent-Tahsildar filed his counter and vacate stay petition, wherein it is stated that the land in Survey No.116 consists of 584.99 cents, is classified as Poramboke and all the revenue records show that no assignment was granted in Sy.No.116 of Thadi village of Parawada Mandal. The 5th respondent-APIIC made a representation 6 for alienation of land. In view of the urgency, at the relevant point of time, the District Collector and Magistrate on obtaining instructions from the CCLA, A.P. Vijayawada, and on the orders of the Government of A.P. Amaravati, vide G.O.Rt.No.1417 Revenue (Assgn.II) Department Dt.02.12.2019 advance possession has been handed over to the 5th respondents and the Tahsildar has not noticed any reliable encroachments and the Writ Petitioners might have been encroached upon the subject land after 2020 i.e., after handing over of Ac.500 cents in Sy.No.116 of Tadi village to APIIC and also stated that the receipts filed by the petitioners are highly questionable and the petitioners are in possession for about 25 years is a baseless and contrary to the facts. Hence, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 4. The 5th respondent-APIIC filed its counter affidavit stating that to an extent of Ac.70.50 cents were handed over and possession was given to the APIIC in four spells i.e. an extent of Ac.6.00 cents on 06.02.2006, an extent of Ac.3.00 cents on 19.07.2007, an extent of 11.50 cents on 21.04.2016 and an extent of 50.00 cents on 23.07.2020, out of the total extent of Ac.584.99 cents, in order to develop Industrial Park, on the requisition made to the Government for alienation of the land. 5. Subsequent to the receipt of the possession by the APIIC, the 6th respondent-M/s.Visakha Pharmacity (Ramky) has requested APIIC to 7 handover the possession of Ac.50.00 cents in Survey No.116P of Thada village of Parawada Mandal, for the purpose of “Secured Land Fill” for the disposal of hazardous waste, as the existing land fill has been completely exhausted. Accordingly, the request of the 6th respondent has been considered and they have allotted an extent of Ac.10.00 cents covered by Sy.No.116P on lease basis for 33 years and the APIIC registered the sale deed on 26.10.2022 vide document No.6638/2022 and denied all the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition and the entire writ petition is filed based on concocted facts. Hence, prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. 6. And the 6th respondent has also filed counter affidavit more or less on the same contentions raised by the 4th and 5th respondents. 7. However, the petitioners have filed their reply affidavit denying all the counter averments. And the photographs filed along with the writ petition clearly indicates that the cashew nuts growing in the subject land and visited the facts stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition and stated that they should not be dispossessed without following due process of law. 8. Heard Sri K. Jyoti Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, for respondent Nos.1 to 4, Sri Gurram Rama Chandra Rao, learned counsel for 8 respondent No.5 and Sri N. Naveen Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.6. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that it is settled proposition of law that even a trespasser should drive home by following due process of law and cannot be dispossessed forcibly, as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in numerous judgments. The writ petitioners, who states that who are in possession have to affirmatively prove their possession, presumptions and probabilities cannot be substituted for evidence. The petitioners herein filed adangal copies to establish their possession of the property. On careful examination of the adangal, the signatures are dissimilar of the same revenue officer in all the seven (7) adangal copies to the naked eye. It gives a suspicion in the Court mind, except this document no other documents were filed by the petitioners to establish possession over the property. And the petitioners are unable to rebut the suspicion surrounding the document i.e. adangal. 10. And in the counter filed by the revenue department, it is stated that the signature on the adangals are fabricated for the purpose of this case. And it further stated that the land was alienated to APIIC and the APIIC is in possession of the property. In the counter filed by the APIIC, it is stated that they have purchased the property and they are in the possession of the property. When the petitioners assert that they 9 are in long possession of the property that they have to satisfy their possession in continuity by placing some evidence to the Court. The writ petitioners are unable to establish the same. If the petitioners think that they have good and valid case, it is before any civil court, that they may avail in that forum not in this writ petition, it will not be desirable for this Court to adjudicate regarding the possession in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 11. In view of the above discussion, as the petitioners are unable to establish prima facie possession over the writ petition scheduled property, the proposition that enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in plethora of judgments that even trespasser should be evicted under due process of law is not applicable in the present scenario, accordingly petitioners are not entitled for any relief, therefore the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 12. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. __________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 28.04.2026 Harin 10 16 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO W.P.No. 13380 OF 2023 Date: 28-03-2026 Harin