Duvvuri Venkata Subba Reddy, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh,
WP/16476/2025 · 2025-07-10
Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 23064 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 23064 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
APHC010325642025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] FRIDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 16476/2025 Between:
1. DUVVURI VENKATA SUBBA REDDY,, S/O D. YANNADI REDDY, AGED 37 YEARS, OCC- CULTIVATION, R/O UPPARAPALLI VILLAGE,
KONDUR PANCHAYAT, PENAGALUR MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT (FORMERLY YSR KADAPA DISTRICT). ...PETITIONER AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT AT RAYACHOTI. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, RAJAMPET REVENUE DIVISION, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, PENAGALUR MANDAL ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. 5. THE MANDAL SURVEYOR, PENAGALUR MANDAL ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. 6. THE GRAMA SURVEYOR, , KONDUR GRAMA PANCHAYAT PENGALUR MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. 7. UTUKURU YASODHAMMA, W/O. U. RAMI REDDY,
OCC- CULTIVATION, R/O UPPARAPALLI VILLAGE,
KONDUR PANCHAYAT, PENAGALUR MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. 2
...RESPONDENT(S): 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 tomay be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of respondents 4 to 6 in insisting the petitioners to vacate from his agricultural landed property in an extent of Ac.5.68 cents in Survey No. 1363 of Kondur Revenue Village, Penagalur Mandal, Rajampet Division, Annamayya District at the instance of 7th respondent, under the guise of survey as illegal, irregular, irrational, without jurisdiction and in violation of the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 and offends Articles 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere in any manner with his possession and enjoyment of aforesaid landed property and pass IA NO: 1 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 may be pleased to direct the respondents not to interfere in any manner with petitioner’s possession and enjoyment over his agricultural landed property in an extent of Ac.5.68 cents in Survey No. 1363 of Kondur Revenue Village, Penagalur Mandal, Rajampet Division, Annamayya District, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. NIMMAGADDA REVATHI Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.
NIMMAGADDA REVATHI Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following:
3
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA
WRIT PETITION NO: 16476/2025
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India seeking the following reliefs:-
“to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent Nos.4 to 6 in insisting the petitioner to vacate from his agricultural landed property in an extent of Ac.5.68 cents in Survey No.1363 of Kondur Revenue Village, Penagalur Mandal, Rajampet Division, Annamayya District at the instance of 7th respondent, under the guise of survey as illegal, irregular, irrational, without jurisdiction and in violation of the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 and offends Articles 14, 21 and 300- A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere in any manner with the petitioner’s possession and enjoyment of aforesaid landed property and pass such other order.”
2. During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner, without touching the merits of the case, requested this Court to issue a direction to the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner’s subject property, without following due process of law. 3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents furnished written instructions dated 02.07.2025 issued by the 4th respondent, wherein it is stated as follows:
4
“According to the Village Surveyor’s report, the webland apttadar, Smt.Utukuru Yashodamma, has submitted an F-line petition in the grama sachivalayam for the land in Sy.No.1363/2 an extent of Ac.1.26 cents and Sy.No.1363/3 an extent of Ac.4.05 cents, which is under her possession and enjoyment cultivated with a mango garden aged about 20 years. The Village Surveyor ahs issued notices to the adjacent pattadars to conduct a survey, and all the pattadars attended and participated in the survey to fix the boundaries. The writ petitioner Subba Reddy was not in possession and enjoyment of th eland and he does not have title on the subject land. There is a planned market rastha in Sy.No.1363/1 an extent of Ac.0.37 cents and the Writ Petitioner has objected her, the Village Surveyor has conducted survey and shown rastha to Smt.Utukuru Yashodamma, the Writ Petitioner has removed the fencing poles unauthorizedly.
As per DKT Registers available in the Tahsildar’s office, Penagalur the land in Sy.No.1363 an extent of Ac.5.68 cents is not entered.”
4. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents, it is observed that when the petitioner is in settled possession and enjoyment of the subject property, he cannot be dispossessed, without following due process of law in view of the law declared by the Apex Court in “Rame Gowda (dead)
5
by L.Rs. v. M.Varadappa Naidu (Dead) by L.Rs.1”. Therefore, if the petitioner is in possession of the subject property, the respondents are directed not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner’s subject property, except by following due process of law. 5. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel miscellaneous application, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ________________________________
VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 1111..0077..22002255 TTPPSS
1 2004 (1) SCC 769
6
122 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA
WRIT PETITION NO:16476 of 2025 1111..0077..22002255 TTPPSS