APHC010126852025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] TUESDAY ,THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 6831/2025 Between: N Krishna Reddy and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. V V SATISH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following ORDER: 1. This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “to issue any writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents No.2 to 4 in resorting to interfere with the petitioners property is illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 14 21 and 300 A of the Constitution of India and to consequently direct the respondents No.2 to 4 not to interfere with the petitioners land admeasuring an extent of Ac 1 00 cents in Sy.No 58/2A, Ac.1. 00 cents in Sy. No.58/2A and Ac 1.23 cents in Sy.No.58/2A of Daminedu Village, Tirupati Rural Manda, Tirupati District respectively and to pass such other order or orders...” 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are the absolute owners and possessors of the subject land, admeasuring to an extent of Ac.1.00 in Sy.No. 58/2A, Ac.1.00 in Sy.No. 58/2A, and Ac.1.23 in Sy.No. 58/2A of Daminedu Village, Tirupati Rural Mandal, Tirupati District and having acquired the subject properties through registered sale deed and have been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the subject properties and their names were also mutated in the revenue records. While things stood thus, the respondents’ authorities are trying to interfere with the petitioners' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property without following the due procedure contemplated under the law. 3. On the other hand the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents furnished written instructions dated 31.03.2025 issued by the 4th respondent, wherein it is stated as follows:- “(3) It is further submitted that an appeal has been preferred by one A.M.Aruna and 2 others against the grant of ryothwari patta in favour of P.Hemanth Kumar and the Revenue Divisional Officer was pleased to take up enquiry and issued notice vide ref Roc.G/1209/2020 and the same is pending enquiry. (4) It is submitted that, regarding the contention of the petitioner that on 25.02.2025 the respondent No.4 came along with his team including the surveyor and measured the land without issuing any prior notice to us and stated that the land belongs to the government and thus we shall vacate the premises. Immediately we have showed the documents in support of our title to the property including the orders passed by t he 6th respondent in favour of out vendor allowing their claim for Ryothwari pattas and the subsequently issued Ryothwari patta and out sale deeds. But the respondents did not lock into the documents and reiterated their demand to vacate the premises. In this connection, it is submitted that the Tahsildar Renigunta i.e. 4th respondent have no jurisdiction over the land and moreover, the Tahsildar, Tirupati rural has attended for court case at Hon’ble CCLA, A.P Mangalagiri. Hence this respondent is threatening to dispossess the petitioner from the land are pale and baseless”. 4. He further submits that the 4th respondent has clearly and categorically stated in his written instructions that neither himself nor his staff are interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property of the petitioners, since the Appeal is pending before the 3rd respondent. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents. 6. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents, and on perusal of the material available on record, this Court observes that a Statutory Appeal is pending for consideration regarding the subject property before the 3rd respondent. Moreover, the 4th respondent has explicitly stated in his written instructions that there is no interference by the office of the 4th respondent with the petitioners' possession. Hence, this Court is inclined to dispose of the present writ petition by directing the respondents’ authorities not to interfere with the petitioners' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property. However, if they intend to do so, they should follow the due process of law as contemplated under the Law. 7. With the above said direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition shall stand closed. ______________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 01.04.2025 klk 39 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION No.6831 of 2025 01.04.2025 kkllkk