Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 12315 (AP)

CHEEMALA SANYASI RAO v. THE STATE OF AP

WP/7865/2025 · 2025-04-01

Subba Reddy Satti

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010145132025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] TUESDAY ,THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 7865/2025 Between: Cheemala Sanyasi Rao ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Ap ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K VENKATESH Counsel for the Respondent: 1. The Court made the following: :: ORDER :: Heard M. Babji, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Smt. Swapna Priya, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Social Welfare, for respondents 1 to 3. 2. Notice to respondents 4 to 6 is dispensed with since no adverse order, affecting their right, title, or interest, is passed. 3. The above writ petition is filed to declare to the action of respondents 2 and 3 in trying to dispossess the petitioner from land of an extent of Ac.0-86 cents in survey Nos.11-1p, 7/1p and 11/2p and Ac.7-15 cents in survey SRS,J W.P.No.7865 of 2025 Nos.10-2, 11-1, 11-2 and 7-1, Lammasingi Revenue village, Chinthapalli Mandal, Alluri Sitha Rama Raju District, as illegal and arbitrary. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of the subject agricultural land. In support of his claim, the petitioner filed copies of Adangal / Pahani dated 19.08.2024 as Exs.P1 and P2. 5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Social Welfare produced a copy instructions furnished by Tahsildar, Chintapalli, wherein it is stated that there is a civil dispute between the petitioner and respondents 4 to 6, in respect of the subject agricultural lands and the unofficial respondents are in the possession and enjoyment of the subject lands. The Tahsildar, Chintappali is not interfering with the subject lands. The relevant part of the instructions is extracted hereunder: “… as per the Settlement Fair Adangal (SFA) of Lammasingi Revenue Village, Chintapalli Mandal, the lands in (1) Sy.Nos.7-1 with an extent of Ac.0.69 Cents is in the name of Cheemala Sanyasi, s/o Chandrayya (2) Sy.No.10 an extent of Ac.0-96 cents in survey No.10 with a total extent of Ac.0.96 Cents is classified as Government Land (Rastha). There is no sy.No.10-2 as claimed by the Petitioner. (3) Sy.No.11-1 with an extent of Ac.0.11 Cents as per the FMB (this survey number is missing in SFA) (4) Sy.No.11-2 with an extent of Ac.3.33 Cents is in the name of Cheemala Chandrayya, S/o Sanyasi. As per the present Online Webland Adangal, theland in Sy.Nos.7- 1 with an extent of Ac.0.69 Cents, Sy.Nos.11-1 with an extent of Ac.0.28 Cents, Sy.Nos.11-2 with an extent of Ac.2.85 Cents, Sy.Nos.10-2 with an extent of Ac.3.33 Cents, is in the name of Smt. Cheemala Kannamma w/o Sanyasi vide Khatha No.9. Further in the present Webland, theland in Sy.Nos.7-1 with an extent of Ac.0.14 Cents, Sy.Nos.11-1 with an extent of Ac.0.05 Cents, Sy.Nos.11-2 with an extent of Ac.0.67 Cents, SRS,J W.P.No.7865 of 2025 has been recorded in the name of Sri. Cheemala Sanyasi s/o Chandrayya vide Khatha No.306.” 6. The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that respondent No.2 is interfering with the petitioner’s possession of the subject land. However, as seen from the instructions furnished by respondent No.2, respondent No.2 is not interfering with the subject land and a civil dispute exists between the petitioner on one hand and respondents 4 to 6 on the other hand. The statement is recorded. 7. In the facts and circumstances, keeping the writ petition doesn’t serve any purpose. This court is also not recording any finding regarding the possession of either petitioner or unofficial respondents over the extent mentioned supra. Private dispute, if any, needs to be resolved before an appropriate forum. 8. Given the instructions of respondent No.2, this writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage, with the consent of learned counsel on either side, directing the respondent No.2 not to interfere with the subject land, without following due process of law. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Dated: 01.04.2025 IKN SRS,J W.P.No.7865 of 2025 175 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION No.7865 of 2025 Dated: 01.04.2025 IKN