1 APHC010156952020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3505] MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 9720/2020 Between: Kolli Dasaradha Ramaiah, and others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. S.NAGESWARAREDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: 2 The Court made the following order: The present writ petition is filed to declare the action of the respondents in insisting the petitioners to vacate from their landed property of an extent of Ac.4.45 cents covered by Sy.Nos.43/6P and 43/7P of Modavalasa Village, Denkada Mandal of Vizianagaram District and contemplating to assign the same as house sites to third parties otherwise than due procedure established by law, in spite of the online applications made by the petitioners under Form 6A for mutating their names in the relevant revenue records and grant Pattadar passbooks dated 07.04.2016 is pending, as illegal, arbitrary, irrational and without any jurisdiction. 2. The petitioners claim that they are the absolute owners and possessors of land admeasuring an extent of Ac.5.37 cents in Sy.Nos.43/6P, 43/7P and 51/6P of Modavalasa Village, Denkada Mandal of Vizianagaram District having purchased the same by virtue of registered sale deed dated 19.12.2014. It is their further claim that since the date of purchase of the said property, they are enjoying the same without any let or hindrance from any quarter. It is their further case that, the respondents have also issued pattadar passbooks and title deeds in the name of Allaboyina Appanna, one of the vendors of the petitioners. Upon making an application for mutation of the petitioners’ name in the revenue records, the respondents have mutated their names in respect of Sy.No.51/6P Modavalasa Village but insofar as other survey numbers, they did not mutate their names despite making applications under Form 6A on 07.04.2016. It is further case of the petitioners that while 3 things stood thus on 01.06.2020, the 4th respondent along with his staff visited the subject land and conducted survey by taking measurements. When the said action of the 4th respondent was objected by the petitioners, they were informed that the subject land is required for distribution of house plots to the poor people under the scheme “Navaratnalu”. As the subject land is private patta land, when the respondents tried to interfere with the possession of the petitioners, the present writ petition came to be filed. 3. While ordering notice, this Court on 09.06.2020 directed the respondents to maintain status quo with regard to possession of the subject property. The said interim order was extended from time to time and the same is subsisting till today. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. 5. On perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition along with the documents annexed thereto, it is clear that the petitioners have purchased the subject land by virtue of registered sale deed dated 19.12.2014. It is also not in dispute that one of the vendors of the petitioners was also issued pattadar passbooks and title deeds over the subject land by duly mutating his name. As the respondents tried to interfere with the possession of the petitioners without issuing any notice, the present writ petition came to be filed and as already noted supra, this Court granted an order of status quo on 09.06.2020 and the same is subsisting. It is also the further case of the petitioners that they made applications under Form 6A dated 07.04.2016 and 4 the same is pending consideration. If the subject land is required for public purpose, the same can be taken only after following the procedure contemplated under Act 30 of 2013. In the case on hand, admittedly, no notice is issued to the petitioners before initiating any action. Therefore, the action of the respondents in trying to interfere with the possession of petitioners is not only illegal but also contrary to the provisions of Act 30 of 2013. 6. In view of the above, the present Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents not to dispossess the petitioners from the subject land except in accordance with law. The 4th respondent is further directed to process the applications filed by the petitioners under Form 6A dated 07.04.2016 and pass appropriate orders thereon after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________ JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR Dt.24.03.2025 KGR