APHC010137212025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3525] MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT APPEAL NO: 267/2025 Between: Shaik Rajiya Begam and Others ...APPELLANT(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. V V SATISH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following Judgment: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) The appellants herein had approached this Court by way of W.P.No.5310 of 2025 with the following contentions:- a. The appellants are in possession of Ac.0.02 cents of land each, in Sy.Nos.89/2, 89/4, 89/5 and 89/6; 90/5 and 90/ ; 91/1 & 91/6 of Anantapur Town, besides the market yard, Anantapur District. This land is government land. 2 b. The revenue authorities, namely respondents 2 to 4 are trying to evict the petitioners from this land without issuing any notice and without providing alternative shelter to the petitioners even though the petitioners had been assured, at the time of occupation of the land, that they would be given proper pattas. c. As the respondent authorities are not providing alternative accommodation, a Writ may be issued by this Court to direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioners without following due process of law and to pass such orders as are necessary to stop the official respondents from interfering with the possession of the petitioners over the land in their occupation. 2. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, submitted certain written instructions before the Learned Single Judge hearing the Writ Petition. In these written instructions, it was stated that the Inspector of Police, III Town police station, had given a letter dated 04.02.2025, stating that one Sri K. Vijay Krishna and six others had submitted a petition that they were in possession of certain extents of land in the very same survey numbers and that certain political leaders had unlawfully trespassed into their land and were trying to grab the land forcibly. The Inspector of Police, III Town police station, requested for a surveyor to be deployed for conducting survey of the disputed land in question and to clarify whether this public or private property and also to furnish the details of ownership. The said survey was conducted, with police protection, on 11.02.2025 & 18.02.2025, wherein it was found that they were 3 encroachments in the patta lands claimed by Sri K. Vijay Krishna & six others. It is also stated that the occupants of land had requested time of 10 days for removing their temporary huts voluntarily. At that stage, the present Writ Petition came to be filed. 3. The Learned Single Judge after the said written instructions were submitted to the Court, had held that interim direction not to interfere with the possession of the petitioners would not be necessary in view of the said written instructions. 4. Aggrieved by this order, dated 04.03.2025. The present Writ Appeal has been moved by the appellants. 5. Sri V.V. Satish, learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the conduct of a survey at the request of the police authorities is clearly illegal in as much as, no complaint has been registered before the Station House Officer, III Town police station, Ananthapuramu and consequently, conduct of a survey on the basis of a request made by the said police officer does not have any basis in law. He would submit that such a procedure is clearly illegal and requires to be interfered. 6. The prayer of the appellants, in the Writ Petition, is to direct the revenue authorities not to interfere with their possession over the land which is said to be in occupation. The revenue authorities have conducted a survey, whether legally permissible or not, and have concluded that the occupation of land by the petitioners is not in public land and is in private land. 4 7. In that view of the matter, this Writ Appeal is disposed of holding that the revenue authorities shall not interfere with the possession of the petitioners over the lands that are said to be in occupation and as identified by the revenue authorities to be in private land. 8. It is open to the private owners of land, if the petitioners are in occupation of such land, to take steps according to law. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J. ________________________ DR K MANMADHA RAO, J. BSM 5 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT APPEAL No.267 of 2025 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) Date: 24.03.2025 BSM