Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 27201 (AP)

KOTIPALLI RANI v. STATE OF AP

WP/25729/2020 · 2025-09-23

B Krishna Mohan

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010385162020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3233] WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN WRIT PETITION NO: 25729/2020 Between: 1. KOTIPALLI RANI, AGED. 55 YEARS, 0CC. COOLIE, R/O CHINNAIAHPETA VILLAGE, SANTHAKAVITI MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. NAVIRI CHINNAMI,, W/O LATE YALLAYYA, AGED. 69 YEARS, 0CC. COOLIE, R/O CHINNAIAHPETA VILLAGE, SANTHAKAVITI MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. MALAKAPALLI URMILA,, W/O LATE MAHESWARA RAO, AGED. 55 YEARS, 0CC. COOLIE,R/O CHINNAIAHPETA VILLAGE, SANTHAKAVITI MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 4. VAVILAPALLI LAKSHMIKANTAM, , W/O MADHAVA RAO, AGED. 57 YEARS, 0CC. COOLIE,R/O CHINNAIAHPETA VILLAGE, SANTHAKAVITI MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 5. RUPITI KALYANI,, W/O VASUDEVA RAO, AGED. 45 YEARS, 0CC. COOLIE, R/O CHINNAIAHPETA VILLAGE, SANTHAKAVITI MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 6. RUPITI BHAVANI,, W/O CHANDRA RAO, AGED. 55 YEARS, 0CC. COOLIE,R/O CHINNAIAHPETA VILLAGE, SANTHAKAVITI MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 7. VAVILAPALLI LAKSHMI,, W/O SURESH, AGED. 69 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE,R/O CHINNAIAHPETA VILLAGE, SANTHAKAVITI MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 8. VAVILAPALLI BALAMANI,, W/O RAMBABU, AGED. 55 YEARS, OCT. COOLIE,R/O CHINNAIAHPETA VILLAGE, SANTHAKAVITI MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 2 9. DASARI TAXDAMMA,, W/O RAMU, AGED. 57 YEARS, 0CC. COOLIE, R/O CHINNAIAHPETA VILLAGE, SANTHAKAVITI MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 10. VAVILAPALLI GANGA,, W/O MOHAN RAO, AGED. 45 YEARS, 0CC. COOLIE, R/O CHINNAIAHPETA VILLAGE, SANTHAKAVITI MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 11. SIVVVAPU PENTAYYA, S/O NARASAYYA, AGED. 55 YEARS, 0CC. COOLIE,R/O CHINNAIAHPETA VILLAGE, SANTHAKAVITI MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 12. MOYYA RAMA,, W/O GANAPATHI RAO, AGED. 69 YEARS, 0CC. COOLIE,R/O CHINNAIAHPETA VILLAGE, SANTHAKAVITI MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 13. RUPITI SUJATHA,, W/O VIJAYA RAO, AGED. 55 YEARS, 0CC. COOLIE, R/O CHINNAIAHPETA VILLAGE, SANTHAKAVITI MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 14. RUPITI SEETHAYAMMA,, W/O JAGANNADHAM, AGED. 56 YEARS, 0CC. COOLIE, R/O CHINNAIAHPETA VILLAGE, SANTHAKAVITI MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PALAKONDA DIVISION, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 4. TAHSILDAR, SANTHAKAVITI MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. ...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 toto issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the inaction of the respondents 2 to 4 on petitioners representation dt. 06.08.2020 submitted to grant house site pattas to the petitioners under NAVARATNALU PEDLANDARIKI ILLU scheme by including their 3 names in eligible beneficiaries list by considering the Eligible List prepared in Grama Sabha conducted by the Chinnaiahpeta Gram Panchayat, Santhakaviti Mandal, Srikakulam District as illegal, irregular, irrational, non-discharge of legal obligation conferred on them under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Board Standing Order 15 and offends Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents include the petitioners names in eligible beneficiaries list and grant house site pattas in the land covered by Survey No.323/2 situated in Chinnaiahpeta Gram Panchayat, Santhakaviti Mandal, Srikakulam District and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2020 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 direct the respondents 2 to 4 not to grant house site pattas to ineligible persons belonged to Mandarada Village on 25-12- 2020 till decision taken on the petitioners representation dt. 06.08.2020 submitted to grant house site pattas to the petitioners under NAVARATNALU PEDLANDARIKI ILLU scheme by including their names in eligible beneficiaries list by considering the Eligible List prepared in Grama Sabha conducted by the Chinnaiahpeta Gram Panchayat, Santhakaviti Mandal, Srikakulam District pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. SRINIVAS AMBATI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 4 The Court made the following Order: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents. 2. This writ petition was filed questioning the inaction of the respondent Nos.2 to 4 on petitioners’ representation dated 06.08.2020 submitted to grant house site pattas to the petitioners under ‘Navaratnalu Pedalandariki Illu’ scheme by including their names in eligible beneficiaries list by considering the eligible list prepared in Grama Sabha conducted by the Chinnaiahpeta Gram Panchayat, Santhakaviti Mandal, Srikakulam District. 3. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that, if the petitioners make any fresh representation to the authorities concerned, the same would be considered by following the due process of law. 4. In view of the above said facts and circumstances, if the petitioners’ representation dated 06.08.2020 was not acted upon, it is open for the petitioners to make a fresh representation enclosing all the necessary documents in support of their claim for grant of house site pattas under the welfare scheme within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of this order to the respondent Nos.2 to 4. On receipt of the same, the respondent Nos.2 to 4 shall consider and dispose of 5 the same subject to the eligibility and entitlement of the petitioners under the existing policy of the state. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. Interim order if any, deemed to have been vacated. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________ JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN 24.09.2025 NNN