Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 13716 (AP)

GUJJULA ROJA RANI v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

WP/9275/2025 · 2025-04-10

Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010166832025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] THURSDAY ,THE TENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 9275/2025 Between: Gujjula Roja Rani ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. NIMMAGADDA REVATHI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: 2 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 9275/2025 ORDER: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India seeking the following reliefs:- “to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents particularly 4th respondent in insisting the petitioner to vacate from her landed property of Ac.0.20 Cents in Sy.No.15 of Kothapalli Village of Bapulapadu Mandal in Krishna District and their subsequent action in deleting petitioner’s name from record of rights as illegal, irregular, irrational, without any authority of law, violative of principles of natural justice and offends Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents particularly 4th respondent not to interfere in any manner with petitioner’s peaceful possession and enjoyment over the said landed property while restoring petitioner’s name in record of rights and pass such other order.” 2. During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner, without touching the merits of the case, requested this Court to issue a direction to the respondents not to interfere with the petitioner’s peaceful possession and enjoyment over the subject property without following due process of law. 3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue furnished the written instructions, wherein it is stated as follows: 3 “1. As per the Fair Land Register Rs.No.15 (LP No.140) the land to an extent of Ac.10.29 cts is classified as Government Poramboke “Konda”. 2. It is to submit that, the subject land was made assignment to 35 beneficiaries in the year 2005, but possession was not shown. 3. In this connection, Buddavarapu Rangamma and 34 others (including the petitioner) filed a PGRS petition vide KRI202501184337 with a request to survey the lands and boundary fixing of 0.20 cents each of 35 members at Rs.No.15 Kothapalli Village. 4. On the PGRS representation the Divisional Inspector of Survey, Gudivada inspected the subject lands and stated that jungle clearance is required for conducting survey and started jungle clearance. 5. The petitioner and other beneficiaries have noted in adangal prior to re-survey but never been in possession, as such the subject lands are notified as Konda Poramboke during the re-survey. 6. Finally, it is to submit that, the petitioner was never been in possession and enjoyment. The land is covered with bushes and no cultivation is being taking place in the subject land. As such the issue of interference of possession by the 4th respondent doesn’t arise and possession will be shown following the due process of law.” 4. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the written instructions furnished by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents, it is observed that when the petitioner is in settled 4 possession and enjoyment of the subject property, she cannot be dispossessed, without following due process of law in view of the law declared by the Apex Court in “Rame Gowda (dead) by L.Rs. v. M.Varadappa Naidu (Dead) by L.Rs.1”. Therefore, if the petitioner is in possession of the subject property, the respondents are directed not to interfere with the petitioner’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property, except by following due process of law. 5. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel miscellaneous application, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 10.04.2025 TTPPSS 1 2004 (1) SCC 769 5 211 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO:9275 of 2025 10.04.2025 TTPPSS