APHC010543902016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA WRIT PETITION No: Between: Paladugu Vimala Kumari and Another The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department & Others Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. Mr.K.SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE (AP) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA WRIT PETITION No: 14081 of 2016 Paladugu Vimala Kumari and Another ...PETITIONERS AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department & Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): Respondent(S): GP FOR REVENUE (AP) IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3209] TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA ...PETITIONERS ...RESPONDENT(S) 2 The Court made the following Order: Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondents. 2. The writ petition is filed on the premise that the respondent No.4 is trying to evict the petitioners from the subject matter land in violation of principles of natural justice, which is illegal and for consequential directions. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners inter alia states that an extent of Ac.0.02 ½ cents each in Survey No.658/1-3 of Brahmanapalli Village was assigned to the petitioners in the year 2006 and that they were put in possession. He submits that the petitioners are enjoying the said property, without any disturbance. However, at the instance of some third parties, they are sought to be evicted without following due procedure as contemplated under Law. He submits that the respondent No.4 also initiated action under the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 and some notices were issued in the name of one Madugula Saida and under the guise of the same, threatening to dispossess the petitioners from the subject matter property and in those circumstances, the petitioners are constrained to file the present writ petition. 4. Mr.K.Siva Prasad, the learned Assistant Government Pleader, on the other hand, made submissions with reference to the averments made in the counter-affidavit. 3 5. From a reading of the said counter-affidavit, it would appear as though house site pattas of an extent of Ac.0.02 ½ cents each were assigned to the petitioners herein. Be that as it may. In Para No.5, it is inter alia stated as follows: “5. In reply to Para No.4, it is respectfully submitted that, the petitioners herein have stated that they have been granted house sites to an extent of Ac.0.02 ½ cents each in Sy.No.658-1-3, but Notice was issued to assignee and alinee for an extent of Ac.0.60 cents in Sy.No.658/1-1. Thus, the petitioners were not given any notice and therefore, this office did not try to evict the petitioners from the house sites claiming to have been assigned to them. The notices were issued to Madugula Saida (assignee) and Chammankat Konnath Subrahmanyam (alinee), but not to Paladugu Vimala Kumari & Paladugu Vijendra Babu (petitioners).” 6. In the light of the above said averments, this Court deems it not necessary to examine the matter in detail. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of, providing that no coercive action in respect of the subject matter property shall be resorted to, except by following due process of Law. No order as to costs. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________ NINALA JAYASURYA, J. Date: 25.02.2025 BLV 4 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA WRIT PETITION No.14081of 2016 Date: 25.02.2025 BLV