APHC010012812021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 958 Between: Seeram Chinna Dhanayya (died) and Others The Government Of Ap and Others Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. KOMMULA VENKATA RATNA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following The short grievance of the petitioners is subordinates and other revenue officials, law, are interfering with the petitioners demolish the structures in the land to an extent of No.19 at Rushikonda Village, Visakhapatnam. 2. Heard Sri C.Leela Srinivas Varma, learned counsel representing Sri Kommula Venkata Ratna Rao, IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 958 OF 2021 Seeram Chinna Dhanayya (died) and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The Government Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): KOMMULA VENKATA RATNA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): the following Order: The short grievance of the petitioners is that respondent No.4, his tes and other revenue officials, highhandly and without following with the petitioners’ possession, and thereby threatening demolish the structures in the land to an extent of Ac.0.21 cents 19 at Rushikonda Village, Visakhapatnam. C.Leela Srinivas Varma, learned counsel representing Kommula Venkata Ratna Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3332] THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI ...PETITIONER(S) ...RESPONDENT(S) that respondent No.4, his and without following threatening to 21 cents in Survey C.Leela Srinivas Varma, learned counsel representing learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Venkata Satyanarayana, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. 3. Sri C.Leela Srinivas Varma, learned counsel representing Sri Kommula Venkata Ratna Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, while reiterating the contents of the affidavit, submitted that the respondent authorities without following the procedure contemplated under law tried to dispossess the petitioners by demolishing the existing structures in the land to an extent of Ac.0.21 cents in Survey No.19 at Rushikonda Village, Visakhapatnam. In view of the same, prayed to pass appropriate orders. 4. Sri Venkata Satyanarayana, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, on counter, contended that the subject land is Vagu Poramboke and petitioner is in possession of the same as an encroacher. 5. Perused the record and considered the submissions. 6. This Court granted interim orders on 19.01.2021 directing the respondents not to dispossess the petitioners from the subject land without following due process of law. 7. The respondents have filed counter along with vacate stay application in I.A.No.4 of 2024 wherein, this Court, on hearing the matter on 23.01.2025 vacated the interim orders on the ground that no proper document was filed to substantiate the petitioners’ possession. The petitioners could not properly assist this Court while arguing I.A.No.4 of 2024. In fact, in the counter, the respondents have categorically admitted the petitioners’ possession and also stated that they would follow due process of law. 8. On a perusal of the counter, it was categorically stated that in the general inspection conducted by the field staff of the Tahsildar, it was observed that the petitioner has encroached land to an extent of Ac.0.21 cents in Survey No.19 of Rushikonda village, which is an objectionable poramboke and they would take necessary action on the illegal encroachment under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905. When the respondent authorities have admitted the petitioners’ possession and they are inclined to take steps in accordance with law, there is no necessity for going into the merits and demerits of the case. This writ petition can be disposed of. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. The respondent authorities are directed not to interfere with the petitioners’ possession except following due process of law. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 17th February, 2025 TJN 146 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 958 OF 2021 Dated:17.02.2025 TJN