APHC010512132024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 26702 of 2024 Between: Peta Anjinamma ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. CH B R P SEKHAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. A S C BOSE (SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AP) 3. O M R LAW FIRM ORDER:- The Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking Mandamus, for the following relief: “…to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the action of the respondent Nos.3 and 4 in interfering with the petitioner’s peaceful possession and enjoyment in respect of the House bearing No.D.No.12-4-785-7, constructed in an extent of 17 X 33 Sq.ft, or Ac.0.01-28 cents, in Sy.No.272-3C, situated at Aadharsh Nagar Colony, Ananthapuram Town, Ananthapuram District on the instigation of third parties is illegal, arbitrary, unjust and unconstitutional and consequently direct the official respondent Nos.3 and 4, not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner in respect of House bearing No.D.No.12-4-785-7, constructed in an extent of 17 X 33 Sq.ft, or Ac.0.01-28 cents, in Sy.No.272-3C, situated at Aadharsh Nagar Colony, Ananthapuram Town, Ananthapuram District…” 2. The case of the petitioner is that she along with her husband late Peta Rajappa, migrated to Ananthapuramu Town 22 years ago in search of daily wage work to eak out their livelihood. They were engaged in construction related activities such as building work and housekeeping etc. As the owners failed to provide adequate housing or shelter during the construction of the houses, her husband constructed a small hut near a drainage culvert to provide shelter for their family. On 14.03.2019 the petitioner’s husband died due to ill-health. 3. While the things stood thus, respondent No.3 visited their area to assess their living conditions over the past 22 years. After inquiring about her family and its status, respondent No.3 issued a possession certificate vide R.Dis.No.B/769/2017, Sy.No.272-3C, measuring 17x33 (0.01.28 Cents) located in Adharsha Nagar, Ananthapuramu. Since then, the petitioner has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property without any hindrances. But however, the third parties with the support of influential persons, associates and followers has been coming to the property and claiming the ownership over the subject property. Despite repeated requests made by the petitioner, the official respondents have failed to take any action. Complaining the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 5. Learned Standing Counsel for Municipal Corporation has furnished a copy of written instructions, wherein in it is stated that in the LP.No.299/83, for the parts A and B, an open space allotted was Ac.1.54 cents, out of which 50 cents is covered by vanka, which is now used as drainage and on the side of the drainage, pattas were issued to 12 members by the Tahsildar office by mentioning the Sy.No272/3C. Further, the respondent office has communicated to the Tahsildar, Ananthapuramu vide Rc.No.4587/2024/G1 Dated.02.12.2024 requesting to provide list of pattas issued in Survey No.272 and to ascertain the genuinity of pattas issued vide R.Dis.No.B/769/2017 Dated.17.10.2017 at Adarsh Nagar, Ananthapuramu and remarks regarding the above writ petitioner and also previous writs vide W.P.No.23789 of 2024 and 23790 of 2024 for taking necessary action in this regard and awaiting for reply. As the pattas were issued by the Revenue Officials i.e., O/o the Tahsildar, Ananthapuramu concerned, the 4th respondent office holds no competence regarding the same. 6. The 5th respondent has filed a detailed counter, wherein it is stated that the 5th respondent is the absolute owner of the property admeasuring an extent of 8.3 cents in Sy.No.272 in LP.No.299/83-B of Anantapuramu Town, Anantapuramu District. The 5th respondent filed O.S.No.125/2009 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Anantapuramu seeking declaration of title over the plaint schedule property and for directing the defendants to deliver possession by demolishing the structures present in the plaint schedule property. In the said suit, the husband of the petitioner was one of the defendants and the trial Court after considering the evidence on record was pleased to decree the suit on 28.03.2017. The said judgment and decree of the trial court has become final. 7. It is also stated that the 5th respondent filed EP.No.108/2017 in OS.No.125/2009 for delivery of possession of the EP schedule property by removing the structures thereon. In the said EP, initially notices were ordered and the trial Court was pleased to issue delivery warrant and the same could not be executed as the defendants have constructed houses in the scheduled property. Thereafter, the matter was being adjourned from time to time and the trial court passed an order on 24.02.2023 for delivery of the property by demolishing the structures. In spite of that the delivery of warrant could not be executed and the matter was being adjourned for time to time and on 12.07.2024, the court made an endorsement that the delivery of warrant could not be executed as Judgment Debtors 2, 4, 6 died and the Judgment Debtors 3 and 5 house doors are locked. The petitioner’s husband is the 5th judgment debtor in the EP. The petitioner is aware of the pendency of the EP proceedings before the trial Court and in fact an application was also filed under Section 47 CPC and the same was served on the counsel for the 5th judgment debtor/husband of the petitioner in the trial Court and the said application was not yet numbered for taking steps to bring the legal representatives of the deceased on record and at that stage, the present writ petition is filed without disclosing of the pendency of the matter in the civil Court. 8. It is pertinent to mention here that as per the written instructions submitted by the Municipal Corporation, it is evident that a report has been called for, to ascertain the genuineness of the pattas issued and to obtain remarks regarding the above petition. Moreover, in the counter, it is inter-alia stated that the 5th respondent filed O.S.No.125 of 2009 seeking a declaration of title over the subject property and the said suit was decreed by order dated 28.03.2017 directing the defendants to deliver the possession of the plaint schedule property by demolishing the structures in it, failing which the plaintiff is at liberty to proceed through due process of law. Now, coming to the case of the petitioner is concerned, the petitioner has not filed any complaint addressed to the respondent Nos.3 and 4 to establish the fact that they have already raised an objection regarding the demolition of their house existing in the scheduled property. It clearly indicates the petitioner’s wrongful intention to create obstacles in the EP proceedings in O.S.No.125 of 2009. Hence, this Court does not find any merits and as such the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 9. In view of the same, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Consequently miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in the Writ Petition, shall also stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date : 12.02.2025 JLV 248 HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA W.P.No.26702 of 2024 Dt.12.02.2025 JLV