APHC010470382024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] MONDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 24482/2024 Between: Kanakanala Anjanamma ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. JITENDRA KANYALUR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER: The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent Nos.2 & 3 are interfering with her possession of the land in Sy.No.40 to an extent of Ac.0.70cents Paiki and Ac.0.30 cents in Saidapuram Village, Kadiri. 2. Heard Sri K.Jitendra, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit contended that the petitioner is the owner and is in possession 2 of the subject property and her name was also reflecting in the revenue records and the same is a private property. While so, respondent No.3, without any locus standi and without following due process of law, is interfering with the subject property and if the same is permitted to materialize, it affects the rights of the petitioners, as such, prayed to pass appropriate orders protecting the interests of the petitioner. 4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader on written instructions of the Tahsildar, Kadiri, dated 20.11.2024, submitted that adjacent to the petitioner’s land an unauthorized layout has been formed in Sy.Nos.39 & 41 of Sydapuram Village, Kadiri Mandal, and sold out their plots to the private persons showing the approach road in Sy.No.40 to an extent Ac.0.30 cents of petitioner’s land in the layout. However, the revenue officials have nothing to do with the petitioner’s private property and they are not interfering with the same. The said written instructions are placed on record and has drawn the attention of this Court to the same. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner requested to record the said written instructions dated 20.11.2020 and close the writ petition. 6. Perused the record and considered the submission made by the learned counsel for both the parties. 7. Highhanded interference of the respondent authorities with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the subject property is the grievance of the petitioner. A perusal of the written instructions of the Tahsildar, Kadiri, dated 20.11.2024 would indicate that the revenue officials 3 are not interfering with the petitioner’s property as alleged by the petitioner in the present writ petition. In view of the same, there remains nothing for adjudication and the writ petition is liable to be closed. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date: 07th April, 2025 RKS