IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA WRIT PETITION NO: 3994 OF 2015 Between: 1. K. Vimala, Wife of Aswathama, Aged about 28 years, Hindu, Coolie, Presently residing at D.No.77/40/8/124-1OA, Ayyappa Swamy Nagar, Kallur Estate,"Kallur, Kurnool District. 2. K. Aruna, Wife of K. Bhaktavastlam, Aged about 30 years, Hindu, Coolie, presently residing at D.No.77/40/10/A1, Ayyappa Swamy Nagar, Kallur Estate, Kallur, Kurnool District. 3. G.Laxmi Devi, Wife of G.Chinna Laxmanna, Aged about 50 years, Hindu, Coolie, presently residing at D.No.56/22, Near King Market, Kurnool. 4. G. Chinna Rangamma, Wife of G.Venkata Swamy, Aged about 50 years, Hindu, Coolie, presently residing at Ward No.35, Shamala Nagar, Kurnool. 5. G. Kista Rangamma, Wife of G. Laxmana Dasu, Aged about 35 years, Hindu, Coolie, presently residing at D.No.80/137/1/1/D, Venkatadri Nagar, Kurnool. 6. G.Ranga Swamy, Son of G. Pullanna, Aged about 50 years, Hindu, Coolie, presently residing at D.No.80/137/1/1/C, Venkatadri Nagar, Kurnool. 7. G. Laxmi Devi, D/o. G. Timmanna, aged about 43 years, Hindu, Coolie, presently residing at D.No.80/137/1/1/A, Venkatadri Nagar, Kurnool. 8. B.Rameshwaramma, Wife of B.V. Naidu, Aged about 45 years, Hindu, Presently residing at D.No.86/37/9A, Venkatadri Nagar, Kurnool. 9. G.Pedda Rangamma, D/o. G. Pullanna, aged about 55 years, Hindu, Coolie, presently residing at D.No.86/137/9B, Venkatadri Nagar, Kurnool. y G.Jayamma, Wife of G.Laxmanna, Aged about 42 years, Hindu, Coolie, presently residing at D.No.86/ 137/9, Venkatadri Nagar, Kurnool. I#-. -••n .i: ...Petitioners AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its District Collector, Kurnool, Kurnool District. 2. The Tahsildar, Kallur Mandal, Kurnool District. 3. The Superintendent of Police, Kurnool, Kurnool District. 4. The Circle Inspector of Police, IV Town Police Station, Kurnool, Kurnool District. 5. B. Ayyanna, Son of B.Madanna, aged about 45 years, Hindu, Coolie, resident of D.No.51-14-50-B, Challavari Veedhi, Near RTC Bus Stand, Kallur Mandal, Kurnool District. 6. Yerukala Sekhar, Son of Yerukala Bushanna, Aged about 60 years, Hindu, Coolie, resident of D.No.51/14/60/5, Challavari Veedhi, Near RTC Bus Stand, Kallur Mandal, Kurnool District. 7. Subbarayudu, Son of and age Not Known to the Petitioners, Ulindakonda Dealer, Kurnool District. 8. Pratrap Reddy, Son of and age Not Known to the Petitioners, Pusuluru, Kurnool 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 may be pleased to Issue a Writ or order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction of the respondents 1 to 4 herein to resume the Plot Nos.1 to 10 in Sy.No.419-C of Kallur Village and Mandal, Kurnool District, Registration District of Kurnool and situated within the Kurnool Municipal Corporation Limits in pursuance of letter dated 25.08.2014 of the petitioner, letter dated 05.09.2014 of the 2nd respondent and order dated 25.02.2014 in OS No.141 of 2013 on the file of the Court of Principle Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool, is illegal, arbitrary, unjust, contrary to the provisions of the Board Standing Orders and also in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 4 herein to resume the Plot Nos.1 to 10 in Sy.No.419-C of Kallur Village and Mandal, Kurnool District, Registration District of Kurnool and situated within the Kurnool Municipal Corporation Limits and restore the same to the petitioners. LA. NO: 1 OF 2015(WPMP. NO: 5294 OF 2015) 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 direct the respondents 1 to 4 herein to resume the Plot Nos.1 to 10 in Sy.No.419-C of Kallur Village and Mandal, Kurnool District, Registration District of Kurnool and situated within the Kurnool Municipal Corporation Limits and restore the same to the petitioners, pending disposal of the Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. K NAGA PHANINDRA Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1&2: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 3&4: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following order: APHC010272232015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3209] FRIDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA WRIT PETITION No:3994 of 2015 Between: K. Vimala, Wife of Aswathama, Aged about 28 years, Hindu, Coolie, Presently residing at D.NO.77/40/8/124-10A, Ayyappa Swamy Nagar, Kallur Estate, Kallur, Kurnool District and others ...Petitioners AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its District Collector, Kurnool, Kurnool District and others Counsel for the Petitioners; Mr. K Naga Phanindra Counsel for the Respondents: 1. GP for Revenue 2. GP for Home ...Respondents The Court made the following Order; Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. The learned Assistant Government Pleader appeared on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 and 2. No representation on behalf of the respondent Nos.3 and 4. Despite service of notice, none entered appearance on behalf of the unofficial respondent Nos.5 to 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are allotted house sites of small extents which are marked as Ex.P1 dated 2. Contd... NJS,J _ W.P No.3994 of 201 r 30,10.2012. He submits that when the unofficial respondents were making attempts to interfere with the petitioners’ possession and enjoyment of the house sites, they filed O.S No.141 of 2013 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool and the same was decreed on 25.02.2014. He submits that despite the orders of the competent Civil Court, the attempts on the part of the unofficial respondents continued and under those circumstances, the petitioners made representations to the respondent Nos.1 and 2 as is evident from Ex.P3. He submits that considering the said 2^ respondent addressed a communication dated 05.09.2014 (Ex,P4) to the 4*^ respondent to take necessary action in the matter and as there response, the petitioners were constrained to file the present writ petition. representations, the was no 3. The learned counsel had also drawn the attention of this Court to the order of a learned Judge in W.P No.4661 of 2013 dated 22.02.2013 and submits that in similar circumstances, directions were issued to the respondent authorities. He submits that though sufficient time was granted to the official respondents, no counter has been filed so far and seeks relief as sought for in the writ petition. 4. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader Revenue, states that despite his best efforts, he could not secure instructions in the matter. for 5. Considered the submissions made and perused the material on record. Noting the fact that the writ petition was filed in the year 2015, instead of waiting for counter or instructions, this Court is of the opinion that the matter can be disposed of. At the outset, it may be pertinent to note that the unofficial respondent Nos.5 and 6 are party defendants in O.S No.141 of 2013 referred to above, and they remained ex-parte in the suit. As seen from the judgment and decree in the said suit, the learned Junior Civil Judge was pleased to grant permanent 6. Contd... NJS,J W.P No. 3994 of 2015 3 injunction in respect of the suit schedule property i.e., house sites allotted to the petitioners herein. as seen from the Though the grievance of the petitioners, representations Ex.P3, is that some of the unofficial respondents herein and others are not allowing the petitioners to enter into their house sites, despite 7. the orders of the Civil Court, as seen from Ex.P4, the 2'''' respondent- Tahsildhar, addressed a communication to the 4^^ respondent and it is not known as to the action taken by the police officials in this regard. Be that as it may. As the petitioners claims that they were assigned house sites by the Government and a decree is passed in their favour with reference to the said house sites, they can as well approach the Civil Court, in the event, there is any violation of the judgment and decree of the Civil Court. However, it may be appropriate to refer to the decision on which reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. It would appear that in similar circumstances, the order in W.P No.4661 of 2013 dated 22.02.2013, came to be passed and the relevant portion read as follows; 8. 9. “...Government land can alone be assigned to those who are eligible for assignment. The mere fact that these lands are assigned does not result in such land ceasing to be Government land. These assigned lands are public property and must be protected. If the assignee is prohibited from alienating the land, it does not stand to that any other person, who has forcibly evicted an assignee and is seeking to convert the assigned land into plots, should be let- reason off without any action being taken, as it is the duty of revenue officials to ensure that Government lands are protected. Ends of respondent is directed to take justice would be met if the 1 necessary action to protect the aforesaid Government land, after Contd... NJS,J W.P No.3994 of 201^r I 4 taking into consideration the report of the Tahsildar. respondent shall at the earliest, and in any event not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, take necessary action, in accordance with law, to protect government property (the land assigned earlier to the petitioner). The Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.” The 10. In the light of the above decision, the writ petition is disposed of, providing the respondent Nos.1 to 4 shall take appropriate action the light of the communication dated 05.09.2014 more particularly, in as expeditiously as possible, within a period of six (06) weeks, from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- M. SRINIVAS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR i //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, The District Collector, State of Andhra Pradesh, Kurnool, Kurnool District. 1. 2. The Tahsildar, Kallur Mandal, Kurnool District. 3. The Superintendent of Police, Kurnool, Kurnool District. The Circle Inspector of Police, IV Town Police Station, Kurnool, Kurnool District. 4. 5. One CC to Sri. K Naga Phanindra Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP For Home, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 7. Two CCs to GP For Revenue, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 8. Three CD Copies GSC HIGH COURT DATED;14/02/2025 *. ORDER WP.No.3994 of 2015 12 MAR 2025 . Currtnt Section DISPOSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS