APHC010264012019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3328] THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 11906/2019 Between: 1. BODDEDA PRASAD, S/O VASANTHA RAO, AGED 45 YEARS, R/O MUNAGAPAKA VILLAGE AND MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT, VISAKHAPATNAM. 3. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICER, VISAKHAPATNAM. 4. THE DIVISIONAL PANCHAYAT OFFICER, VISAKHAPATNAM. 5. THE EXTENSION OFFICER, PR AND RP, PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT, MUNAGAPAKA VILLAGE AND MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 6. THE NAGAVARAM GRAM PANCHAYAT, MUNAGAPAKA MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICTS REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 7. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, MUNAGAPAKA, VISAKAPATNAM DISTRICT 2 ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V V N NARAYANA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME (AP) 2. K K DURGA PRASAD 3. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV (AP) The Court made the following: ORAL ORDER: Heard Sri K. Ujwal Bharat, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri V.V.N. Narayana Rao, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner, Sri P. Chaitanya, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Y. Koteswara Rao, learned Standing Counsel for Gram Panchayat and Sri T. Sanjeeva Rao, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. 2. The present Writ Petition is filed with the following prayer: “…pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in try to dispossess the petitioner from the lands in Sy.No.358/1 to an extent of Ac.0.09 cents, Sy.No.358/2 to an extent of Ac.0.11 cents, Sy.No.358/3 to an extent of Ac.0.08 cents, Sy.No.358/4 to an extent of Ac.0.05 cents, Sy.No.358/5 to an extent of Ac.0.09 cents, Sy.No.358/9 to an extent of Ac.0.12 cents, Sy.No.358/10 to an extent of Ac.0.07 cents, Sy.No.358/11 to an extent of Ac.0.36 cents, Sy.No.347/10 to an extent of Ac.1.09 cents, Sy.No.3581/4 to an extent of Ac.0.11 cents, Sy.No.358/15 to an extent of Ac.0.50 cents, Sy.No.358/6 to an extent of Ac.0.08 cents, Sy.No.358/8 to an extent of Ac.0.02 cents, Sy.No.358/8A to an extent of Ac.0.01 cents, Sy.No.358/8 to an extent of Ac.0.20 cents, Sy.No.347/2 to an extent of Ac.0.43 cents, Sy.No.358/7A, 13A and 10B to an extent of Ac.3.81 cents, Sy.No.346/19 to an extent of Ac.0.22 cents, Sy.No.358/12 to an extent of Ac.0.66 cents, Sy.No.347/9 to an extent of Ac.0.38 cents, Sy.No.358/7 to an extent of Ac.0.04 cents, Sy.No.358/13 to an extent of Ac.0.06 cents and Sy.No.358/10A to an extent 3 of Ac.0.03 ½ cents respectively situated at Nagavaram Village, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District is illegal, unjust, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and in violations of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner's from the lands in Sy.No.358/1 to an extent of Ac.0.09 cents, Sy.No.358/2 to an extent of Ac.0.11 cents, Sy.No.358/3 to an extent of Ac.0.08 cents, Sy.No.358/4 to an extent of Ac.0.05 cents, Sy.No.358/5 to an extent of Ac.0.09 cents, Sy.No.358/9 to an extent of Ac.0.12 cents, Sy.No.358/10 to an extent of Ac.0.07 cents, Sy.No.358/11 to an extent of Ac.0.36 cents, Sy.No.347/10 to an extent of Ac.1.09 cents, Sy.No.3581/4 to an extent of Ac.0.11 cents, Sy.No.358/15 to an extent of Ac.0.50 cents, Sy.No.358/6 to an extent of Ac.0.08 cents, Sy.No.358/8 to an extent of Ac.0.02 cents, Sy.No.358/8A to an extent of Ac.0.01 cents, Sy.No.358/8 to an extent of Ac.0.20 cents, Sy.No.347/2 to an extent of Ac.0.43 cents, Sy.No.358/7A, 13A and 10B to an extent of Ac.3.81 cents, Sy.No.346/19 to an extent of Ac.0.22 cents, Sy.No.358/12 to an extent of Ac.0.66 cents, Sy.No.347/9 to an extent of Ac.0.38 cents, Sy.No.358/7 to an extent of Ac.0.04 cents, Sy.No.358/13 to an extent of Ac.0.06 cents and Sy.No.358/10A to an extent of Ac.0.03 ½ cents respectively situated at Nagavaram Village, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District except under due process of law, and pass…” 3. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the Writ Petitioner and his wife are the absolute owners of various extents of land as mentioned in para 3 and 4 of the Affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition. The learned Counsel would submit that while the Petitioner and his wife are carrying on agricultural activity, the Official Respondents herein are trying to dispossess the Petitioner from the agricultural land on the pretext that the Petitioner has converted the subject land into a layout for house plots. 4. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner has also drawn the attention of this Court to the Spandana complaint given by him on 19.08.2019 (Ex.P.3), wherein it has been categorically stated that the Petitioner is carrying on agricultural activity, whereas the Official Respondents have made false allegations against him that the Writ Petitioner has made a layout of house 4 plots in the subject land, and that the said allegation against him is factually incorrect. 5. In para 3 and 4 of the Affidavit, the Petitioner has given a complete table of extents of land held and owned by him, along with survey numbers and document numbers, including 1B Adangal file number. 6. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner has also drawn the attention of this Court to the Pattadar Pass Book issued in favour of the Writ Petitioner (Ex.P.1) along with copies of the Revenue Records including Adangal Pahanies, wherein it has been clearly stated in Column Nos. 12 & 13 that the Writ Petitioner is the owner and enjoyer of the subject property. 7. On 22.08.2019, the learned Single Judge of this Court was pleased to grant a limited stay of dispossession. On 15.11.2022, this Court had granted time to the Official Respondents to file a Counter-Affidavit. 8. Despite the fact that time was granted to the Official Respondents way back on 15.11.2022 for filing the Counter-Affidavit, the same has not been filed so far. Therefore, this Court would proceed on the basis of the available record. 9. As stated hereinabove, prima facie, it is proved that Writ Petitioner is the absolute owner and enjoyer of the subject property. It has been categorically stated in the Spandana complaint dated 19.08.2019 (Ex.P.3) and also in the Affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition that the Writ Petitioner is utilizing the said land only for agricultural purposes and has neither undertaken nor made any layout to convert the same into house plots. 10. Having considered the above submissions, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of this Writ Petition on the basis of the averments in the Affidavit as well as the documents mentioned hereinabove (Pattadar Pass Book, Adangal copies, and the Spandana Application) with a direction to the Respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of 5 the Petitioner’s property so long as the nature of the property is maintained as agricultural land. 11. Needless to state that if the Writ Petitioner undertakes to convert the land for non-agricultural purposes, the Writ Petitioner is statutorily obligated to make the necessary Application before the Competent Authority and seek permission for conversion of the land. 12. Till such time, the Writ Petitioner shall continue to carry on agricultural activity, and so long as the Petitioner continues agricultural activity, the Official Respondents shall not interfere. 13. With these observations and directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. 14. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. ______________________________________ GANNAMANENIRAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Dt: 19.06.2025 DSV