APHC010455702025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] THURSDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 23570/2025 Between: 1. PUDI SRINIVASA KUMAR, S/O ATCHYUTA RAO, AGE 57 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O H.NO.32-1-203, BOWDARA ROAD, VISAKHAPATNAM ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, M 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, VISAKHAPATNAM. 4. THE TAHASILDAR, MANDAL REVENUE OFFICE, CHINAGADILI VILLAGE, VISAKHAPATNAM RURAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 5. THE GREATER VISAKHAPATNAM MUNICIPAL CORPN, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER, G.V.M.C., VISAKHAPATNAM ...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 topleased to issue a writ or order or direction, 2 more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS, declaring the high handed action of the 4th respondent in passing the present impugned proceedings vide Rc.No.396/2025/A dated 25.08.2025, which is without jurisdiction, without application of mind, arbitrary, bad and illegal, irrational, unconstitutional, without mentioning the provision of Law the enquiry, violation of principles of natural justice, violation of Article 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, pertaining to the petitioner's agricultural Zeroyathi dry land situated in Survey Nos. 16/1 and 16/2 to an extent of Ac.0.87 cents vide Patta No.91 situated at Madhuravada Village of Visakhapatnam Rural, which was acquired by way of Regd. Sale deeds Nos.(1)470 of 1947 dated 14.03.1947 (2)1459 of 1959 dated 20.05.1959 (3)495 of 1961 dated 07.03.1961 (4) 2813 of 1967 dated 04.09.1967 etc., consequently set aside the same by directing the respondents not to interfere the petitioners above property as stated supra in the interest of justice and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 pleased to direct the 4th respondent and his subordinates not to dispossess the petitioner from his agricultural dry land to an extent of Ac.0.87 cents in Survey No. 16/1 & 16/2 vide Patta No.91, situated at Madhuravada Village, Visakhapatnam Rural by suspending the proceedings vide Rc. No.396/2025/A dated 25.08.2025 issued by the 4th respondent in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KURITI BHASKARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. 3 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No. 23570 of 2025 ORDER: The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the following relief: …pleased to issue a writ or order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the high handed action of the 4th respondent in passing the present impugned proceedings vide Rc.No.396/2025/A dated 25.08.2025, which is without jurisdiction, without application of mind, arbitrary, bad and illegal, irrational, unconstitutional, without mentioning the provisions of Law the enquiry, violation of principles of natural justice, violation of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, pertaining to the petitioner’s agricultural Zeroyathi dry land situated in Survey Nos.16/1 & 16/2 to an extent of Ac.0.87 cents vide Patta No.91 situated at Madhuravada Village of Visakhapatnam Rural, which was acquired by way of Regd. Sale deeds Nos.(1) 470 of 1947 dated 14.03.1947 (2) 1459 of 1959 dated 20.05.1959 (3) 495 of 1961 dated 07.03.1961 (4) 2813 of 1967 dated 04.09.1967 etc., consequently set aside the same by directing the respondents not to interfere the petitioner’s above property as stated supra in the interest of justice and pass such other order or orders……. 4 2. The notice dated 02.08.2025 is assailed in the present Writ Petition on the ground that no opportunity was given to the petitioner to submit his explanation. 3. It is the substantive contention of the petitioner that while on 28.10.2014 the respondent Nos.2 to 4 made an attempt to dispossess him from the land in Survey No.16/1 and 16/2 to an extent of Ac.0.87 cents vide patta No.91, situated at Madhuravada Village, high- handedly, then the petitioner was constrained to file the Writ Petition No.33307of 2014 on the file of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, and the Court was pleased to grant an interim order on 06.11.2014 and directed the respondents therein not to dispossess the petitioner from the above land, since he has been in physical possession and enjoyment of the said land. Thereby, the respondents have stopped interfering and the respondents have filed Counter, wherein they have stated that they are not interfering with the above land. Subsequently, the Writ Petition is listed finally on 26.04.2022, wherein the Government Pleader for Revenue has reported that they are not interfering with the above land. Based on those instructions, the Writ Petition has been disposed of, directing the respondents to follow the due procedure as contemplated under the Law, if at all they 5 intend to interfere with the possession of the petitioner over the subject matter of the land. 4. It is further stated that now the 4th respondent has sent a show- cause notice dated 02.08.2025 by Whats-App and called for an explanation and thereby the petitioner filed a request letter praying for time. Accordingly, it was posted to 14.08.2025, and then the 4th respondent wanted to conduct an enquiry without mentioning any provision of law, and directed the petitioner to file registered sale deeds for verification, and also directed the petitioner to appear on 19.08.2025. Thereby, the petitioner sought time for filing documents, as some of them are with the petitioner’s Advocate and the petitioner requested the Advocate to send those documents. Without verification of his documents, on 18.08.2025 at about 03.30 p.m., the 4th respondent and his subordinates along with the office staff of 5th respondent came with Bull-dozer and tried to cut the trees and remove the seasoned trees. On knowing this information, the petitioner rushed to the spot and protested. Thereby, the Government officials have left the premises. On the enquiry of the petitioner, he came to know that the subject matter of the property was wanted to be allotted to the third parties by the 4th respondent unilaterally. Thereby, the petitioner was shocked. 6 Hence, the action of the 4th respondent is without jurisdiction and biased one and violation of Articles 14 and 300A of the Constitution of India. 5. The petitioner herein made a representation to the respondent, Tahsildar seeking some time to submit the documents and detailed reply to the notice dated 02.08.2025. Without considering the same, the impugned order came to be passed. 6. The State Counsel placed on record written instructions dated 03.09.2025, addressed by the Tahsildar, Visakhapatnam Rural, wherein it is stated that the petitioner has a statutory remedy of appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Bhimunipatnam, to be availed within 30 days under the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971. It is contended that the petitioner failed to avail this remedy prior to filing the writ petition, rendering the writ petition premature and liable to be dismissed. It is further submitted that the petitioner’s claim has been thoroughly considered, and that his alleged possession is illegal and unconstitutional, as the lands in question are Government lands. 7. The first and foremost contention of the writ petitioner is that there was no opportunity given to submit an explanation to the notice dated 02.08.2025 to rebut the contentions raised to the notice, 7 additionally, when the petitioner requested additional time to provide an explanation, the respondents ordered the petitioners to vacate the land in question through the impugned order issued on 26.06.2019. Preventing the petitioner from presenting evidence raises concerns about fairness and the pursuit of justice, potentially leading to injustice. The respondent did not provide an opportunity, nor sufficient time, to respond to the notice, thus denying the petitioner the chance to address its contents. This situation resulted to pass the impugned order, that is in violation of principles of natural justice. 8. See the law laid down by the Apex Court in Ram Sarup Gupta (Dead) By Lrs vs Bishun Narain Inter College & Ors1 wherein it is concluded that denial of an opportunity to file counter to vacate petition opposing the plea amounts to depriving the party from its valuable right to file counter and that denial to file counter/reply, amounts to violation of principle of natural justice. 9. Without going to the merits of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the petitioner herein to submit his explanation to the notice dated 02.08.2025 within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. On submitting such explanation, 1 1987 (2) SCC 555 8 the 4th respondent herein is directed to examine the same and pass orders after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner herein. Till such time, the respondents are directed not to take any coercive steps. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending if any shall stand closed. ___________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 04.09.2025 Harin 9 104 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO W.P.No. 23570 OF 2025 Date: 04-09-2025 Harin