1 RRR, J & TCDS, J W.A.No.1044 of 2025 APHC010503362025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3529] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT APPEAL NO: 1044/2025 Between: The State Of AP and Others ...APPELLANT(S) AND Pyla Ramulamma and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. THE ADVOCATE GENERAL Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. S.MOHANA RAO The Court made the following Judgment: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) Heard learned Advocate General appearing for the appellant-State and Sri S. Mohana Rao, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 28, and Sri Ghanta Rama Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents 29 to 31. 2 RRR, J & TCDS, J W.A.No.1044 of 2025 2. The private respondents herein, claim that they had been allotted Ac.0.50 cents of land each in Sy.No.101/1 of Annavaram Village, Bhimunipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam, under Cluster Leadership Development Programme. It is stated that the total extent of land, so occupied, by the private respondents, is Ac.14.00. The private respondents claim that they have been in possession of this land for the past decades or so and that the appellants are seeking to dispossess them from this land without following due process of law and without giving any compensation to the private respondents. The private respondents rely upon certain proceedings of the Tahsildar as well as a suit filed by them, to demonstrate that they were in possession of the land, and more particularly, the private respondents rely upon the report, dated 11.12.2006, of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Bhimunipatnam, wherein the possession of these respondents is said to have been certified. 3. Aggrieved by the proposed eviction from this land, the private respondents had approached this Court by way of W.P.No.15768 of 2025, which was disposed of by a learned Single Judge of this Court, on 27.06.2025, directing the appellants not to dispossess the private respondents herein, if they are in possession. Thereafter, the Tahsildar, Bhimunipatnam, had passed proceedings, dated 01.09.2025, holding that the private respondents were never in possession of the land, or in any event, they were not able to demonstrate their possession over the land after 2012. 3 RRR, J & TCDS, J W.A.No.1044 of 2025 4. Aggrieved by the said proceedings the private respondents again approached this Court by way of W.P.No.24446 of 2025. A learned Single Judge of this Court, by way of an interlocutory order, dated 11.09.2025, had suspended the said proceedings of the Tahsildar, dated 01.09.2025. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants have moved the present writ appeal. 5. The learned Advocate General appearing for the appellants, would contend that the respondents are not in possession of the land and the said land had, in fact, been handedover to the Tourism Department by the Revenue Department, in the year 2023 itself, and subsequently, the land had also been allotted and transferred to a private company in pursuance of the Tourism Policy enunciated by the State. He would submit that the private company had also fenced the land and the contentions of the private respondents, that they are in possession of the land, should not have been accepted. 6. Sri S. Mohana Rao, learned counsel appearing for the private respondents 1 to 28 would contend that the private respondents remain in possession of the land and the photographs, taken in relation to the said land, would demonstrate that coconut trees have been grown by the private respondents and they are very much available on the land. 7. The order of the learned Single Judge is an interlocutory order, passed at the stage of admission. The appropriate course of action for the 4 RRR, J & TCDS, J W.A.No.1044 of 2025 appellants would be to approach the learned Single Judge by way of a vacate petition and it would not be appropriate for this Court to take up this matter at this stage. 8. In the circumstances, the writ appeal is disposed of leaving it open to the appellants, to approach the learned Single Judge, by way of a vacate petition. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ R RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J ________________ T.C.D. SEKHAR, J Js. 5 RRR, J & TCDS, J W.A.No.1044 of 2025 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR WRIT APPEAL No.1044 of 2025 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R Raghunandan Rao) 26th September, 2025 Js