APHC010385852022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: Between: Nemalikanti Srinivas and others The State of Andhra Pradesh and others Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. E V V S RAVI KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. N SRIHARI (Standing Counsel for ZPP MPP and GRAM PANCHAYAT) The Court made the following order: The grievance of the petitioners is that contemplated under law, dispossess them from their lands to an extents of 167, 167, 167 sq yards in plot Nos.3, 4, 5; 200 sq yards in plot N yards in plot No.48; 166.66, 167 sq yards in plot N IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 23500/2022 Nemalikanti Srinivas and others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): E V V S RAVI KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): (Standing Counsel for ZPP MPP and GRAM PANCHAYAT) The Court made the following order: The grievance of the petitioners is that without following the procedure contemplated under law, the respondent authorities are contemplating to their lands to an extents of 167, 167, 167 sq yards in plot Nos.3, 4, 5; 200 sq yards in plot No.49; 200 sq yards in plot No.61 166.66, 167 sq yards in plot Nos.17, 18; 167 sq yards in IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3332] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI ...PETITIONER(S) ...RESPONDENT(S) (Standing Counsel for ZPP MPP and GRAM PANCHAYAT) without following the procedure ies are contemplating to their lands to an extents of 167, 167, 167 sq yards in 200 sq yards in plot No.61; 167 sq s.17, 18; 167 sq yards in 2 plot No.19; 167.226 sq yards in plot No.36; 200 sq yards in plot No.30; 200 sq yards in plot No.37; 200 sq yards in plot No.50; 200 sq yards in plot No.38; 200, 200 sq yards in plot Nos.42, 43; 167, 167 sq yards in plot Nos.23, 22; 200 sq yards in plot No.60; 200, 200 sq yards in plot Nos.55, 56 and 200, 200 sq yards in plot Nos.57, 58 respectively situated in survey number 68/2 of Muddapaka village, Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 2. Heard Sri P.Raja Sekhar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Krishna Praneeth, learned Assistant Government Pleader for appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Sri M.Sudhir, learned standing counsel for Panchayat Raj appearing for respondent No.5. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit contended that the petitioners are the absolute owners and possessors of their subject lands, having purchased the same under two different sale deeds and prior to their purchase, their vendors have been in possession and enjoyment of the said properties and revenue records show their names as possessors and owners of the subject property. The petitioners purchased the said properties under two different lay outs approved by respondent No.5. Some of the petitioners have constructed temporary structures in their properties and obtained electricity connection and they also paid property taxes. Some of the petitioners have applied for Land Regularization scheme and they have been rejected. He further submitted that 3 recently respondent Nos.4 and 5 started measuring the property on the ground that the subject properties are required for the purpose of granting house site pattas to the poor people. He further submitted that the subject properties are private properties and the Government has no manner of right over the subject land. In the year 2007, when the subject property was included in 22-A of the Registration Act, their vendor addressed a letter on 20.11.2007 to the District Collector to delete the subject property from 22-A list and thereafter the registration activities with regard to subject property was stopped by the registering authorities. He further submitted that several representations were made by the petitioners to delete the subject property from 22-A list. The respondents have neither given any acknowledgement to the said representations, nor taken any action in that regard. Therefore, the petitioners made an application through mee-seva on 24.02.2020 to regularize their sale deeds. Since the revenue records have been manipulated by the respondents and shown the lands as Government lands, the online applications are not being entertained though online and therefore, they made an application on 12.04.2021 physically, but the office of respondent No.2 refused to give valid acknowledgment. Now the respondent authorities are taking steps to issue house site pattas to the poor people. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition is filed and this Court vide order dated 01.08.2022 directed the respondents not to dispossess the petitioners from 4 the subject land without following the due process of law. As such, prayed to pass order treating the interim order as final order. 4. Sri Sudheer, learned standing counsel for respondent No.5-Gram Panchayat while reinterring the contents of the counter submitted that Grama Panchayat is not at all interfering with the subject property and the revenue authority is competent to take steps in this matter. 5. Sri Krishna Praneeth, learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that if the petitioners makes fresh application through mee-seva, the authorities would consider the same in accordance with law. 6. To the said submission, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that liberty may be given to the petitioners to make fresh application/representation for deletion of the subject property from the Prohibited Properties List. 7. Perusal the record would indicate that the petitioners made representations for deletion of the subject properties from 22-A list to the revenue authorities long back and considering the said representations at this length of time does not arise. 8. In view of the above and taking the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, as the petitioners intend to make fresh application through mee- seva and as the authorities submitted that they would act upon the same in accordance with law, there is no purpose in keeping this Writ Petition pending 5 inviting counter from the revenue authorities. In these circumstances, this Court, instead of going into the merits of the case, is inclined to dispose of the Writ Petition with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties by passing the following order: (i) The petitioners are at liberty to make appropriate application through mee-seva along with supporting material/documents in respect of their claim. If the online application is not accepted, the petitioners are at liberty to submit their representation manually. (ii) On such application, the authority concerned is directed to consider and dispose of the same in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners, within a period of three (3) months thereafter and communicate the same to the petitioners. 9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications pending, if any in the Writ Petition, shall also stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 24.01.2025 MP 6 308 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO.23500 OF 2022 24.01.2025 MP