1 APHC010371052016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3310] MONDAY ,THE THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 36063/2016 Between: B.surya Narayana, and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh Revenue Endowments and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. V RAGHU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS (AP) 2. ELEVATED AS JUDGE The Court made the following: ORDER: The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief: “…..declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in constructing wall in the land of the petitioners bearing Plot No 26/part, admeasuring 100 sq. yds or 83.613 sq.mts and Part of Plot Nos.27 and 28 admeasuring 100 sq. yds and Plot No.23, 24 admeasuring 668.22 sq.yds part of Plot No.21 admeasuring 2 144.44 sq. yds, part of Plot No.22 admeasuring 200 sq. yds, part of Plot No.25 admeasuring 144.66 sq. yds and Plot No.27, 28 part admeasuring 333.33 sq. yds bearing patta No.16, 17, Dakhala Sy.No.204/3A, 204/2A situated at panchayat approved Lay out P.R No.115 dated 30.03.1971 situated at Adivivararn Village in Pedagadili Mandal in Vishakapatnam District as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents not to proceed with the said construction of wall in the plots of the petitioners and pass such other or further orders…..” 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioners are owners and possessors of the land bearing Plot No 26/part, admeasuring 100 sq. yds or 83.613 sq.mts and Part of Plot Nos.27 and 28 admeasuring 100 sq. yds and Plot No.23, 24 admeasuring 668.22 sq.yds part of Plot No.21 admeasuring 144.44 sq. yds, part of Plot No.22 admeasuring 200 sq. yds, part of Plot No.25 admeasuring 144.66 sq. yds and Plot No.27, 28 part admeasuring 333.33 sq. yds bearing patta No.16, 17, situated in Sy.Nos.204/3A and 204/2A of Adavivaram Village, Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal and District, having purchased the same through registered sale deeds and they have been in possession and enjoyment of the above said lands without any interruption. While so, the respondents are constructing wall in the property of the petitioners without giving any notice, which act is illegal and arbitrary as the said land never vested with the 3rd respondent at any point of time. Thereafter, the petitioners have submitted representation dated 24.02.2015 and also issued reminder to the 3rd respondent complaining the illegal action of the 3rd respondent in constructing the wall in the petitioners’ land. The 3rd respondent rejected the objections submitted by the petitioners and again 3 came to the plots of the petitioners and started construction of the wall. Hence the present writ petition is filed. 3. The 3rd respondent filed counter. While denying the contents of the writ petition, he stated that, the vendors of the petitioners by suppressing the fact of issuance of the ryotwari patta granted in favour of the 3rd respondent Devasthanam, have sold away the land to the petitioners. Said sale transaction is not binding on the 3rd respondent. Further stated that already enquiry was completed under Inam Abolition Act, and Form-I notices were published as per the Rule 3 of the Inams Abolition Act. After completion of Inam enquiries, further notices are not necessary to the persons who are interested to claim over the lands. Therefore, the petitioners have no right to question the action of the respondent Devasthanam. Further stated that previously the petitioners filed W.P.No.4655 of 2015 and W.P.No.6075 of 2015 before the Composite High Court questioning the action of the respondent Devasthanam and the Composite High Court disposed the said writ petitions directing the 3rd respondent to consider the objections raised by the petitioners and take a decision in accordance with law and till such time, granted status quo. Pursuant to the orders passed by the Composite High Court in the above writ petitions, the 3rd respondent has considered the objections raised by the petitioners in their representation dated 21.02.2015 and rejected their objections vide Rc.No.C1/758/2015-1, 4 dated 08.03.2015 and Rc.No.C1/758/2015-2 dated 08.03.2015 respectively. After disposal of the application submitted by the petitioners, the question of status quo does not arise. Hence, the Devasthanam has taken up the construction of compound wall work. Therefore, 3rd respondent sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. Heard Mr.V.Raghu, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments, appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.V.Jagadeesh, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for the 3rd respondent. 5. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the writ petition is filed to consider the representation dated 24.02.2015 and also questioning the action of the 3rd respondent in constructing wall in the patta land of the petitioners bearing Plot No 26/part, admeasuring 100 sq. yds or 83.613 sq.mts and Part of Plot Nos.27 and 28 admeasuring 100 sq. yds and Plot No.23, 24 admeasuring 668.22 sq.yds part of Plot No.21 admeasuring 144.44 sq. yds, part of Plot No.22 admeasuring 200 sq. yds, part of Plot No.25 admeasuring 144.66 sq. yds and Plot No.27, 28 part admeasuring 333.33 sq. yds bearing patta No.16, 17, situated in Sy.Nos.204/3A and 204/2A of Adavivaram Village, Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal and District. 6. On perusal of the record, it appears that this Court has not granted any interim order. This Court further observed that at the time of 5 granting status quo in W.P.No.4655 of 2015 and W.P.No.6075 of 2015 in respect of the subject land, the Composite High Court has directed the 3rd respondent to consider the objections submitted by the petitioners and proceed further according to law. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent has considered and rejected the objections raised by the petitioners. 7. Upon hearing the submissions of both the counsels, this Court deems fit to dispose of the present Writ Petition by giving liberty to the petitioners to submit a fresh representation to the respondent authorities by raising their objections and on such representation, the 2nd respondent is directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law. 8. With the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J. Date: 03.02.2025 ARR 6 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION No.36063 of 2016 Date : 03.02.2025 ARR