APHC010173102025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] THURSDAY ,THE THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 8867/2025 Between: L Usha Rani ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SUBBA RAO KORRAPATI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: 2 NV,J W.P.No.8867 of 2025 ORDER: 1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India claiming the following relief: “To pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in trying to forcibly dispossess the petitioner from the house site in an extent of Ac.0.02 Cts in Sy.No. 1643/3 in Chinnagottigallu Village and Mandal, Tirupati District, without issuing any notice, and without following due process of law, even though the patta granted to the petitioner on 9-12-1997 is in vougue, as arbitrary, illegal, for extraneous considerations power and in violation of Articles 14,21 and 300Aofthe Constitution colourable exercise of of India and consequently direct the Respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the house site in an extent of Ac.0.02 Cts in Sy.No. 1643/3 in Chinnagottigallu Village and Mandal, Tirupati District.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was granted house site patta to an extent of Ac.0-02 cents in Sy.No.1643/3, Chinnagottigallu Village and Mandal, Chittoor District. The petitioner constructed thatched house in the subject property and since then she has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. Learned counsel submits that on 01.04.2025 the officials of the 4th respondent interfere with the property and tried to dispossess her without following due process of law. Challenging the high-handed action of the official respondents, the present writ petition is instituted. 3 NV,J W.P.No.8867 of 2025 3. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Revenue furnished written instructions of the Tahsildar, Chinnagottigallu Mandal dated 03.04.2025. It is submitted that the petitioner has mislead the Court by claiming ownership of land that does not exist in official records. Sy.No.1643/3 is not found in the A-Register of WEbland records of Chinnagottigallu Village. Further, the petitioner did not construct a house within the required time, which led to automatic cancellation of her house site patta. The petitioner also does not qualify for government assigned house site, as both the petitioner and her husband hold multiple electricity connections, showing financial stability. It is also submitted that the petitioner has already filed O.S.No.7 of 2025 before the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Piler claiming another house site patta in Sy.No.1643, as such, the petitioner obtained two pattas and trying to claim rights over multiple rights. Based on the above submission, learned Government Pleader for Revenue requested to dismiss the writ petition. 4. Heard Sri Subba Rao Korrapati, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Revenue and perused the material available on record. 5. The petitioner claims that she was allotted House Site HS.No.369 in respect of land of an extent of Ac.0-02 cents in Sy.No.1643/3, Chinnagottigallu Village and Mandal, Chittoor District. But, in the written instructions, the same is disputed by the Tahsildar stating that no house site construction was carried out in the said survey number. Objections are raised by the 4th respondent 4 NV,J W.P.No.8867 of 2025 with regard to qualification of the petitioner for government assigned house site, multiple electricity connections, financial stability, etc. Claim of another house site patta in Sy.No.1643 by the petitioner, which is subject matter of O.S.No.7 of 2025 on the file of Civil Judge Court, Piler, and its pendency is also brought to the notice of this Court. In view of the factual disputes, this Court is not going into the merits of the case. 6. Taking into consideration the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner regarding the threat of dispossession of the petitioner and also considering the written instructions of the 4th respondent, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the respondents to follow due process of law, if they intend to meddle with the property of the petitioner. 7. With the above direction, writ petition is disposed of. No costs. 8. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed. _____________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA Date:03.04.2025 SP 5 NV,J W.P.No.8867 of 2025 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 8867/2024 Date:03.04.2025 W SP