0APHC010331992022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3505] THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 19915/2022 Between: Rambhaktha Chinnathalli, ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. N ASHWANI KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2 The Court made the following order: 1. The Writ Petitioner claims that she is in occupation of the land admeasuring an extent of Ac.90 sq. yards in Sy.No.96 (new Sy.No.87) of Kummaripalem Village, Beemunipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District by raising a hut and residing therein since 1990. 2. It is her further case that in pursuance of G.O.Ms.No.388, dated 24.08.2017, the Government introduced a scheme for regularization of the unobjectionable encroachments in Government lands by way of Dwelling Units in rural and urban areas up to 500 sq. yards by levying certain charges. In pursuance of the said G.O, the petitioner made an application dated 10.08.2017 to consider her case for regularization of plot which is in her possession. It is further case of the petitioner that when the respondents tried to interfere with her possession, she filed a writ petition vide W.P.No.6277 of 2019 and upon hearing the parties, the said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 30.04.2019 directing the respondents not to evict the petitioner from the subject lands, pending consideration of her application for regularization. The 2nd respondent-Tahsildar rejected the case 3 of the petitioner for regularization of plot in her favour by virtue by proceedings dated 24.08.2019. 3. Questioning the said proceedings, the petitioner preferred writ petition before this Court vide W.P.No.16666 of 2019 on the ground that the Tahsildar does not have jurisdiction to reject the application made by her for regularization and in fact it is only a three member committee constituted under the said G.O has to pass necessary orders on the eligibility of the petitioner. This Court, disposed of the said writ petition by order dated 02.11.2019 setting aside the proceedings dated 24.08.2019 issued by the 3rd respondent by directing the three member committee consisting of Sub Collector/RDO, Town Planning Officer/MPDO and Tahsildar concerned to process the application filed by the petitioner and to decide the same strictly in accordance with law. 4. It is further case of the petitioner that despite order passed by this Court in W.P.No.16666 of 2019, when there was no action taken in the matter, she made a representation dated 09.05.2022 to the 2nd respondent. Upon the said representation, the 2nd respondent issued endorsement dated 23.05.2022 stating that writ petition vide W.P.No.6277 of 2010 (sic: W.P.No.6277 of 4 2019) is pending adjudication before this Court and after disposal of the same, appropriate orders will be passed on her representation. Questioning the said endorsement dated 23.05.2022, the present writ petition is filed. 5. On the other hand, the 2nd respondent filed counter affidavit stating that the impugned endorsement is rightly passed in view of the fact that the writ petition filed by the petitioner in W.P.No.6277 of 2010 (sic: W.P.No.6277 of 2019) is pending adjudication. 6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. Perused the material available on record. 7. On careful perusal of the impugned endorsement dated 23.05.2022, it is clearly stated that the case of the petitioner was not considered in view of the pendency of the writ petition vide WP.No.6277 of 2019. The 2nd respondent without even verifying the records and without application of mind, mechanically issued the endorsement in as much as the writ petition vide WP.No.6277 of 2019 was disposed of by order dated 30.04.2019. In fact, the petitioner also annexed a copy of the 5 same along with the present writ petition. Apart from the same, this Court in WP No.16666 of 2019 has categorically directed the three men committee to consider the application made by the petitioner for regularization of plot which is in her possession and to pass appropriate orders thereon. 8. In the above backdrop, the impugned endorsement is liable to be set aside and accordingly the same is set aside. Further, the respondents are directed to process the application filed by the petitioner for regularization of subject plot by placing the matter before the three men committee. The three men committee is further directed to pass appropriate orders thereon in terms of order dated 02.11.2019 passed in WP No.16666 of 2019, as expeditiously as possible. 9. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. As a sequel, Miscellaneous Applications, if any, pending shall also stand dismissed. _____________________ JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR Dt.27.03.2025 JLV 6 7 292 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR W.P.No.19915 of 2022 Date: 27.03.2025 JLV