IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH::AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADoX WRIT PETITION NO; 8754 OF Between: 1. K Krishnaveni, W/o. V. Mohan Babu, Aged 30 years R/o Kothanaipm village. Renigunta Mandal, Tirupati District. ^ ’ ^^othapalem w/o. Narasimhulu, Aged about 64 years R/o Kothapalem village, Renigunta Mandal, Tirupati District. ^ 3. Nagaram Vinod Kumar, S/o. Vasu aoed 40 vear«; R/n k’nfhonoiQr« village, Renigunta Mandal, Tirupati District 4. N. Rajesh, S/o. Babu, Aged 41 Renigunta Mandal, Tirupati District. 5. N. Jagadeesh, S/o. Khannan, Aged 26 Renigunta Mandal, Tirupati District. Lakshmi, W/o. Jawaharlal Reddy, Aged 54 years R/o Kothapalem village Renigunta Mandal, Tirupati District. ^ ^ f^®ddy, S/o. Damodar Reddy, Aged 31 years R/o Kothapalem yillage, Renigunta Mandal, Tirupati District. ^ 8. V Rajya Lakshmi. W/o. S. Siva. Aged village, Renigunta Mandal, Tirupati District. 9. Mynaparthi Jagadeesh Kumar, S/o. Srinivasa Rao Aaed phniit years, R/o. Kothapalem village, Renigunta Mandal, Tirupati District 12. P. Pujitha, W/o. Eswar Reddy, Aged 28 Renigunta Mandal, Tirupati District. Kumar Reddy, Aged 37 years R/o. Kothapalem village, Renigunta Mandal, Tirupati District ^ Subrahmanyam Reddy Aged 39 years R/O. Kothapalem village. Renigunta Mandal, Tirupati District ^ ’ Subrahmanyam Reddy Aqed 60 vear^ R/n Kothapalem village, Renigunta Mandal. TirupaU DisliS. ^ ’ °- years, R/o. Kothapalem village, years, R/o. Kothapalem village. 34 years, R/o. Kothapalem 39 years, R/o. years, R/o. Kothapalem yillage 16. D Khatun bi, S/o Ghouse Muhiddin, Aged 38 years, R/o. Kothapalem village, Renigunta Mandal, Tirupati District. 17.S Sobha Rani, W/o. N. Prem Kumar, Aged 36 years, R/o. Kothapalem village, Renigunta Mandal, Tirupati District. 18. R Bava Fakruddin S/o R. Naga Babu, Aged 43 years, R/o. Kothapalem village, Renigunta Mandal, Tirupati District. 19. N Mounika, W/o. Nagaram Ravi, Aged 32 years, R/o. Kothapalem village, Renigunta Mandal, Tirupati District. 20.Shaik Reshma Anjum, W/o. Gouse Mohiddin, Aged 37 Kothapalem village, Renigunta Mandal, Tirupati District. Kothapalem village, Renigunta Mandal, Tirupati District. ^ Kumar Aged 36 years, R/o. Kothapalem village, Renigunta Mandal, Tirupati District. ^ years, R/o. kothapalem village, Renigunta Mandal, Tirupati District Village, Renigunta Mandal, Tirupati District ^ ,'^®''®9ayya, aged 64 years, R/o. Kothapalem Village, Renigunta Mandal, Tirupati District wilane"Roni™;nt™M’ ,K!l?'inan, Aged 44 years, R/o. Kothapalem Village, Renigunta Mandal, Tirupati District Viilan»''®Rl'ni^(?nt'®o Subramanyam Aged 35 years, R/o. Kothapalem Village, Renigunta Mandal, Tirupati District vlilanrR^nTnl'.nl^^M Kumar Aged 36 years, R/o. Kothapalem Village, Renigunta Mandal, Tirupati District 29. N. Kousalya, W/o. Vasu, Aged 60 Renigunta Mandal, Tirupati District 30. Eriki Srilatha, W/o. Harinath, Aged 30 years, R/o. Kothapalem Villaqe Renigunta Mandal, Tirupati District viiiage years, R/o. years, R/o. Kothapalem Village, ...Petitioners AND l.^w State of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue Department, Secretariat Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District, Rep. by its Principal Secretary ’ 2. The District Collector, Tirupati District, Tirupati. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sri Kalahasthi, Tirupati District. 4. The Tahsildar, Renigunta, Tirupati 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 be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the action of the 4'*^ respondent in taking steps in trying to demolish the houses of the petitioners situated in Sy.No. Sy.No.188/1, 187/10A, 187/11, 187/1 IB, 188/7, 188/1 at Kothapalem village, Renigunta Mandal, Tirupati District as illegal, arbitrary, violation of principles of natural justice, one without jurisdiction and violation of Article 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to demolish the petitioners' houses situated in Sy.No. Sy.No.188/1, 187/10A, 187/11, 187/1 IB, 188/7, 188/1 at Kothapalem village, Renigunta Mandal, Tirupati District may lA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 not to demolish the petitioners’ houses situated in Sy.No. Sy.No.188/1, 187/10A, 187/11, 187/11B. 188/7, 188/1 at Kothapalem village, Renigunta Mandal, Tirupati District Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI C SUBODH Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 4: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: Order APHC010170472025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] WEDNESDAY ,THE SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO.THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 8754/2025 Between: ...PETITIONER(S) K Krishnaveni and Others AND ...RESPONDENT(S) The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1.CSUBODH Counsel for the Respohdent(S): 1.GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: 2 h NV,J W.P.No.8754 of 2025 ORDER: 1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India claiming the following relief; to issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction, declaring the action of the 4*'' respondent in taking steps in trying to demolish the houses of the petitioners situated in Sy No Sy.No.188/1, 187/10A, 187/11, 187/11B, 188/7, 188/1 at Kothapalem village, Renigunta Mandal, Tirupati District as illegal, arbitrary, violation of principles of natural justice, one without ' jurisdiction and violation of Article 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to demolish the petitioners houses situated in Sy.No. Sy.No.188/1, 187/10A, 187/11, 187/11B, 188/7, 188/1 at Kothapalem village, Renigunta Mandal, Tirupati District” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners allotted small extent of house sites in the year 2010 and thereafter, they in peaceful possession 'and enjoyment of the subject land by constructing huts, asbestos sheet houses. Possession certificates were also issued to the petitioners. He submits that, on 01.04.2025, the 4**' respondent tried to demolish the houses of the petitioners by using machinery. When 'the petitioners obstructed the demolition, the 4*^ respondent threatened to implicate the petitioners in criminal cases. Challenging the action of the 4'*' respondent in taking steps in trying to demolish the houses of the petitioners situated in Sy.No. Sy.No.188/1, 187/10A, 187/11, 187/11B, 188/7, 188/1 at were were 3 NVJ W.P.No.8754 of 2025 Kothapalem village, Renigunta Mandal, Tirupati District, the present writ petition is filed. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue furnished written instructions 3. submitted by the Tahsildar, Renigunta dated 02.04.2025, stating that, upon verification into the village accounts of Kothapalem Village, the subject lands are classified as Government Land and Patta Land. It is submitted that the copies of the purported possession certificates produced by the petitioners are non-existing according to the official records and no such pattas are in existence. In Paragraph No.3 of the written instructions, it is submitted as follows: i. All the writ petitioners will be called for enquiry by issuing notice for production of cognizable documentary evidence along with Aadhar card; ii. If the writ petitioners are not available in the purported sites or in the subject lands, notice will be published in Kothapalem village where the lands are situated; iii. A panchanama also will be recorded in the village; iv. Connected revenue records will be verified; V. And after completion of enquiry appropriate action will be taken in accordance with provisions of law Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government 4. Pleader for Revenue. 4 NV,J W.P.No.8754 of 2025 The petitioners contend that they were allotted house sites and produced possession declaration certificates. But, the 4*^ respondent submitted that the purported possession certificates produced by the petitioners are non-exis'ting according to the official records and no such 5. pattas are in existence. Moreover, in the written instructions, the subject land is classified as ‘Government Land’ and ‘Patta Land’. 6. Hence, in view of the written instructions, the respondents are directed not to take any coercive steps against the petitioners and they shall follow due process of law, in case they intend to meddle with the property of the petitioners. 7. With the above direction, writ petition is disposed of. No costs. 8. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- N. NAGANIMA assistant regisjrar SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, Revenue 1. The Principal Secretary, State of Andhra Pradesh Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. The District Collector, Tirupati District, Tirupati. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sri Kalahasthi, Tirupati District. 4. The Tahsildar, Renigunta, Tirupati District. 5. One CC to SRI C SUBODH Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 7. Three CD Copies gsg HIGH COURT DATED: 02/04/2025 ORDER WP.No.8754 of 2025 X 0: APR 2025 o\ ml Pa/ ^ . Current Section DISPOSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS