, IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVA THURSDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA ® i 02 »■- mi .jc;- AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT APPEAL NO: 684 OF 2025 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 29.05.2025 in I.A.No.1 of 2025 in Writ Petition No.13968 of 2025 on the file of the High Court. Between: 1. The State of A.P, Revenue Department, interim Government Complex, AP, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary. - 2. The District Collector, YSR Kadapa District, Andhra Pradesh. 3. The Mandal Revenue Officer M R O / Tahsildhar,, Chintakommadinne Mandal, YSR Kadapa District, Andhra Pradesh. 4. The Divisional Forest Officer, YSR Kadapa District, Andhra Pradesh. 5. The Forest Range Officer, YSR Kadapa District, Andhra Pradesh. 6. The Forest Beat Officer, Maddimadugu West Beat, YSR Kadapa District, Andhra Pradesh. 7. The Superintending Engineer, GNSS, YSR Kadapa District, Andhra Pradesh. ...APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS AND 1. S. Sandeep Reddy, S/o Late S. Diwakar Reddy, Aged about 42 years Occ Business, R/o Plot No.86, HUDA Heights, MLA Colony, Road No. 12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, Telangana-500034. ' r N. Bh^geerathi, W/o Late S. Diwakar Reddy, Aged about 67 years Occ Business, R/o Plot No.86, HUDA Heights, MLA Colony, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, Telangana-500034. 3. S. Janardhan Reddy, S/o Late Subba Reddy, Aged about 77 years, Occ Retired Employee, R/o 97/18832, VJ Elite 5th Floor, Beside Turning Point, Utukuru, Kadapa, Andhra Pradesh-516003. 4. S. Vijaya Kumari, W/o S. Janardhan Reddy, Aged about 71 years Occ Housewife, R/o 97/18832, VJ Elite, 5th Floor, Beside Turning Point, Utukuru, Kadapa, Andhra Pradesh-516003. 5. Y. Satya Sandeep Reddy, S/o Prabhakar Reddy, Aged about 42 years, Occ Business, R/o Villa 19A, Hill Ridge Villas ISB road, Gachibowli, Hyderabad-500032. ...RESPONDENTS/WRIT PETITIONERS lA NO: 2 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 suspend the operation of the order dated 29.05.2025 passed in I.A.No.l of 2025 in W.P.No. 13968 of 2025. Counsel for the Appellants: SRI DAMMALAPATI SRINIVAS, THE ADVOCATE GENERAL Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 5: SRI D. PRAKASH REDDY, SENIOR CONSEL FOR SRI TARUN G. REDDY The Court made the following: JUDGMENT APHC01028042202S IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3540] THURSDAY ,THE FIFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT APPEAL NO: 684/2025 Between: ...APPELLANT(S) The State Of Ap and Others AND ...RESPONDENT(S) S Sandeep Reddy and Others Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1.THE ADVOCATE GENERAL Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.TARUN G. REDDY The Court made the following: JUDGMENT (per Justice Kiranmayee Mandava): Heard the submissions of the learned Advocate General Sri Dammalapati Srinivas for the appellants and Sri D.Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri Tarun G.Reddy, learned counsel for respondents/writ petitioners. The instant appeal is directed against the interim order of the learned single Judge dated 29.05.2025, wherein the learned single Judge has 2. 2 granted interim direction as prayed for which involves a direction to the wrJt appellants not to interfere with the possession of the respondents herein the subject property and suspending the operation of the impugned order the writ petition dated 21.05.2025. over in It is argued by the learned Advocate General that by the date of order passed by the learned single Judge, possession of the property has been taken over by the writ appellants on 21.05.20205 under a Panchanama. In the light of the same, it is argued that the learned Judge should have considered the Panchanama evidencing taking over of possession of the subject land and should not have entertained the interim relief, without hearing the writ appellants. 3. It is further argued by the learned Advocate General that while passing the impugned order in the writ petition dated 21.05.2025, sufficient 4. opportunity was afforded to the writ petitioners and that they have submitted their representation dated 10.03.2025, after conducting a' joint survey/inspection, the order impugned in the writ petition was passed and possession of the lands was also taken. He further argues that the order impugned in the writ petition is without reasons and prays for set aside of the same. 5. Per contra, the learned senior counsel Sri D.Prakash Reddy would submit that the impugned order is an interlocutory order, the.writ appeal filed against the same is not maintainable, having regard to the nature t)f the order as an “interlocutory one”, and further argues that the appellants could have approached the learned single Judge by way of a vacate petition, and sought for modification of the order. In support of his contention that the appeal is not maintainable against an interlocutory order, where final rights of the parties have not been adjudicated, he relies on the following decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court and this Court; (i) the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Midnapore Peoples Coop. Bank Ltd. and Others Vs. Chunilal Nanda and Others^ (ii) the decision of this Court in the case of University of Hyderabad, Hyderabad Vs. Sadik Hussain and Others^. 6. He further argues that copy of the report of the joint survey/inspection said to have been conducted was not furnished to the writ petitioners. Without giving opportunity or without putting on notice, to the petitioner, the order under challenge in the writ petition was passed. The learned senior counsel argues that the principles of natural justice demands that the parties should be put on notice before any adversial/adversarial order is passed against them. The only notices contended to have been issued to the writ petitioner were the notices issued by the Tahsildar requiring the petitioner to present themselves when the inspection/survey was conducted, the learned senior counsel argues that the impugned order in the writ petition was passed by the District Collector, who did not give any notice Whereas, 1 (2006) 5 see 399 ^ 2014 (2) ALD 265 4 to the petitioner at any point of time, before the order impugned in the writ petition was passed. He further contends that the possession alleged to have been taken by the writ appellants under Panchanama was only a paper Panchanama, the writ petitioners are in possession of the lands. The learned senior counsel relies on the following decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Banda Development Authority, Banda Vs. Moti Lai Agarwal and Others^, contends as to how the possession of immovable property must be taken, depending on their nature. In the said decision, which arises under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is observed as under: ‘37. The principles which can be culled out from the abovenoted judgments are: i) No hard and fast rule can be laid down as to what act would constitute taking of possession of the acquired land, ii) If the acquired land is vacant, the act of the concerned State authority to go to the spot and prepare a panchnama will ordinarily be treated as sufficient to constitute taking of possession. Hi) If crop is standing on the acquired land or building/structu re exists, mere going on the spot by the concerned authority will, by itsel,f be not sufficient for taking possession. Ordinarily, in such cases, the authority concerned will have to give notice to the occupier of the building/structure or the person who has cultivated the land and possession In the presence of independent witnesses and get their signatures on the panchnama. Of course, refusal of the owner of the land or bullding/structure may not lead to an Inference that the possession of the acquired land has not been taken, iv) If the acquisition is of a large tract of land, it may not be possible for the acquiring/designated authority to take physical possession of each and every parcel of the land and it will be sufficient that symbolic possession is taken by preparing appropriate document in the presence of independent witnesses and getting their signatures such document. take on ^ (2011) 5 see 394 5 v) If beneficiary of the acquisition is an agency/instrumentality of the State and 80% of the total compensation is deposited in terms of Section 17(3-A) and substantial portion of the acquired land has been utilised in furtherance of the particular public purpose, then the Court may reasonably presume that possession of the acquired land has been taken. ” Considered the rival submissions. The interim relief sought in the 7. writ petition is for suspension of the impugned order as well as injunction restraining the respondents/appellants in taking possession of the subject lands. Vide the impugned order, the learned single Judge while suspending, the order under challenge in the writ petition directed the writ appellants not to interfere with the possession of the writ petitioners. The ultimate effect of the interim order passed by the learned Judge is restraining the appellants from taking possession of the subject lands. However, appellants herein contend that they have already taken possession of the lands vide Panchanama dated 21.05.2025, which was not taken into consideration while passing the order under appeal. Having regard to the same, without going into merits of the case in the writ petition, we deem it appropriate to modify the order of the learned 9 \ single Judge. The reliance made by the learned senior counsel on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Banda Development Authority, Banda, particularly clause (iii) of Para 37 of the judgment is distinguishable on facts in as much as the same arises under the provisions of Land Acquisition The Hon’ble Apex Court after referring to the various decisions, laid down, as to what actions of the authorities would constitute taking over 8. Act, 1894. possession of the land i same is distinguishable on facts. in cases of compulsory land acquisition. Therefore, the 9. The Writ Appeal is disposed of deeming it the order under appeal to the following The parties shall maintain Status inWP,No.13968 of 2025 which There shall be appropriate to modify effect; -Quo till the next date of hearing of the is scheduled on 30.06.2025 ” Writ Petition i no order as to costs. As a sequel, all pending mimiscellaneous applications shall stand closed. Sd/- K. TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To. 1. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, State of A.P., Interim Government Complex, AP, Secretariat, Pradesh. Velagapudi, Guntur, Andhra 2. The District Coilector, YSR Kadapa District, Andhra Pradesh. 3. The Mandal Revenue Officer MRO/Tahsildhar, Chintakommadinne Mandal, YSR Kadapa District. Andhra Pradesh. 4. The Divisional Forest Officer, YSR Kadapa District, Andhra Pradesh 5. The Forest Range Officer, YSR Kadapa District. Andhra Pradesh. 6. The Forest Beat Officer Maddimadugu West Beat, YSR Kadapd District, Andhra Pradesh. 7. The Superintending Engineer, GNSS, Pradesh. YSR Kadapa District, Andhra 8. Two CC’s to the Advocate General, High Court of A 9. One CC to Sri Tarun G. Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 10. The Section Officer, Writ (Non-Service Section), High Court of A.P. at Amaravati. 11. The Section Officer, Posting Section, High Court 12. Three CD Copies. • P. [OPUC] of A.P. at Amaravati. ssb HIGH COURT DATED:05/06/2025 JUDGMENT WA.No.684 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE W.A. WITHOUT COSTS