IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE i PRESENT \ THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 7449 OF 2022 Between; A. Venkata Ramana, S/o. Sanyasulu, aged about 64 years, R/ o. Mokasa Kothapatnam Village, Rulugunta Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi. 2. The District Collector, Visakhapatnam District, Visakhapatnam. 3. The Joint Collector, Visakhapatnam District, Visakhapatnam. 4. The Revenue Divisional OfFrcer, Narsipatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 5. The Tahsildar, Narsipatnam. Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. ...RESPONDENTS 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 Writ, or Direction especially one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents no. 2 to 5 in taking possession of the petitioner's land admeasuring an extent of Ac. 1.94 cents in Sy.No.390/2B, situated in Chettupalli village, Narsipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District for the purpose of allotment of the houses when the revision appeal filed by the petitioner pending before the 3rd respondent being illegal, arbitrary. Unconstitutional and violative of principles of natural justice and contrary to Section 4 (b) (i) of Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 200^'and consequently direct the respondents not to make any constructions ih the petitioners land admeasuring as an extent F of Ac.1.94 cents in Sy.No.390/2B, situated in Chettupalli village, Narsipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. IA NOfe 1 OF 2022 /‘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 to direct the respondents no. 2 to 5 not to make any constructions in the petitioner's land admeasuring an extent of Ac.1.94 cents in Sy.No.390/2B, situated in Chettupalli village, Narsipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District pending disposal of writ petition. lA NO: 2 OF 2022 Between: 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary,,. Department of Revenue, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi. 2. The District Collector, Visakhapatnam District, Visakhapatnam. 3. The Joint Collector, Visakhapatnam District, Visakhapatnam. 4. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Narsipatnam, Visakhapatnam District. ’ 5. The Tahsildar, Narsipatnam. Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. ...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS AND A. Venkata Ramana, S/o. Sanyasulu, aged about 64 years, R/ o. Mokasa Kothapatnam Village, Rulugunta Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. ...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER 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 to vacate the interim order passed in W.P.No.7449/2022 dated 29.3.2022. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K. JYOTHI PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 5: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010136172022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] FRIDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 7449/2022 BETWEEN: ...PETITIONER A VENKATA RAM ANA AND ...RESPONDENT(S) THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 1.K JYOTHI PRASAD COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT(S): 1.GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: The short grievance of the petitioner is that pending revision before the Joint Collector of Visakhapatnam District filed assailing the resumption orders passed by the Tahsildar, the authorities are attempting to dispossess the petitioner from the subject land for allotment of house sites under the Government scheme called ‘Navaratnalu Pedalandariki lllu’. Heard Sri K. Jyothi Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and 2. Sri Krishna Praneeth, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. 3. Sri K. Jyothi Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the contents of the affidavit, submitted that the subject land is assigned land and the Tahsildar invoking the provision of Act 9 of 1977, passed resumption orders in the year 2020. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the RDO wherein the same has been dismissed in the year 2020. Pursuantly, as per Section 9 of 1977, revision has been filed before the Joint Collector and the same is not even numbered but endorsed on the copy of the revision evidencing that revision has been filed on 02.01.2021. Knowing pretty well that the revision is pending for adjudication before the Joint Collector, the revenue authorities tried to dispossess the petitioner from the subject property in order to give the subject land for the landless poor under the Government scheme called \ % ‘Navaratnalu Pedalandariki lllu’. This Court initially granted an order of status quo on 23.09.2022. Inadvertently, the same could not be extended but however the land is still vacant land and the petitioner is still in possession of the subject property. Accordingly, if the respondent authorities allot the petitioner’s land to some third parties, it not only affects the rights of the petitioner but also third party interest will come into play. Further the purpose of filing the revision would be defeated. Accordingly, prayed to pass appropriate orders protecting the interest of the petitioner. some 4. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader, Sri Krishna Praneeth, on counter, while disputing the case inter alia contended that the revision said to have been filed by the petitioner was not available in the now js*: office records. Now by virtue of bifurcation of revenue district, the subject district falls within the jurisdiction of Anakapalli District wherein in both the places they have verified office records and the revision filed by the petitioner have not found place. Even otherwise, the petitioner did not pursue all these years and now at this length of time he cannot contend that a revision has been filed in the year 2021. The possession of the land has been taken pursuant to the resumption orders and now the petitioner cannot claim right over the same, the writ petition is misconceived, devoid of merits and prayed to dismiss the writ petition. any 5. Perused the record and considered the submissions. It is not in dispute that resumption orders have been passed way back in the year 2020 wherein the appeal filed by the petitioner also got dismissed by the appellate authority. Now, the contention of the petitioner is that the pursuant to the dismissal of the appeal by the RDO, a revision has been filed before the Joint Collector under Section 9 of Act 9 of 1977. The copy of the revision which is filed along with the writ petition contained the stamp of the Collector’s Office & initial. The respondents are disputing about filing of revision by the petitioner and contended that the same is not found place in their office records. This Court cannot adjudicate whether the petitioner has filed the revision or not under the writ jurisdiction. To meet the ends of justice, without going into merits and demerits of the case, this Court is inclined to dispose of this writ petition by passing the following order: 6. I \ I / (i) The petitioner shall file a copy of the revision filed before this court in the writ petition before the Joint Collector concerned along with supporting affidavit explaining the reasons for delay within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. (ii) On receipt of the said revision, the concerned authority shall adjudicate the same including the delay application and stay application filed, if any and pass orders on the said interlocutory applications in accordance with law. The said applications shall be adjudicated within a period of two (02) weeks thereafter. 7. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. Sd/-N NAGAMMA assistant registrar //true COPY// To, SECTtON OFFICER State of Andhra 5. The Tahsildar, Narsipatnam otndarvr«1h”’ District. 6. One CC to Sri K Jvothi aw ' District. 7. Two CCs tn r D D Prasad, Advocate [OPUCl 8. Three CD Copies ^'9^ Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] ssb HIGH COURT ■>r DATED:03/01/2025 ORDER 2 5 FEB 2C25 | ^ . Current Section WP.No.7449 of 2022 ■lx DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS