1 RRR,J & Dr. KMR,J W.A.No.351/2020 APHC010300572020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3525] MONDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT APPEAL NO: 351/2020 Between: Badraiah Setty @ M.g. Badarinath. ...APPELLANT AND H Narase Gowd and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant: 1. A PADMA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. The Court made the following Judgment: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) Heard Smt. Akella Padma, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Sri P. Nara Hari Babu, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent, learned G.P. for Revenue appearing for respondents 2 to 5, learned G.P. for Education appearing for respondent No.6. 2 RRR,J & Dr. KMR,J W.A.No.351/2020 2. The 1st respondent herein had moved W.P.No.16125 of 2019 before this Court with the complaint that there has been encroachment of land to an extent of Ac.1.26 cents in Sy.No.367-8, belonging to Sri Anjaneya Swamy Temple, situated in Mandalahalli Village, Gudibanda Mandal, Anantapur District. The 1st respondent contended that this encroachment was not being removed, and in fact, the 7th respondent in this appeal was trying to encroach upon the temple land. 3. This writ petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by order dated 18.10.2019. However, it was left open to the 1st respondent to initiate appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. 4. Thereafter, the Mandal Revenue Officer is said to have initiated steps and issued a notice dated 21.04.2020, calling upon the appellant herein, to show cause as to why steps should not be taken to remove the house and other structures put up by him about Ac.0.03 cents of land in S.No.367-8. 4. The appellant, being aggrieved by the said action of the Mandal Revenue Officer as well as the judgment of the learned Single Judge, has approached this Court by way of the present writ appeal. 5. Smt. Akella Padma, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the wife of the appellant is in possession of Ac.0.03 cents of land by virtue of DKT patta given in her favour after considering her legal possession over the land. She submits that despite dismissal of the writ petition, the Mandal Revenue Officer has initiated action for her eviction on the 3 RRR,J & Dr. KMR,J W.A.No.351/2020 ground that a finding has been given by the learned Single Judge that the appellant is in illegal possession of the land. 6. It is further submitted that the appellant, who had been arrayed as respondent No.6 in the writ petition, had filed a separate writ bearing W.P.No.8370 of 2020 against the proceedings initiated by the Mandal Revenue Officer, and an order of status quo has been granted by this Court. 7. In the circumstances, nothing further survives in this writ appeal in as much as the issues raised in the present case are already raised before a learned Single Judge in W.P.No.8370 of 2020. 8. Accordingly, the writ appeal is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any shall stand closed. _______________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J _______________________ Dr. K. MANMADHA RAO, J Js. 4 RRR,J & Dr. KMR,J W.A.No.351/2020 THE HON’ABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO WRIT APPEAL No351 of 2020 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R Raghunandan Rao) 24th March, 2025 Js