APHC010584832024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA WRIT Between: 1. CHEDALA USHA RANI, W/O. SEVA KANTHA RAJU, AGE 29 YEARS, R/O. THIMMAPURAM VILLAGE, ADDATEEGALA MANDAL, ALLURI SEETHARAMA RAJU DISTRICT. 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALLURI SEETHARAMA RAJU DISTRICT AT PADERU. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, RAMPACHODAVARAM ALLURI SEETHARAMA RAJU DISTRI 4. THE TAHSILDAR, ADDATEEGALA MANDAL RAJU DISTRICT. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SIVA NAGARJUNA SIDHADAPU Counsel for the Respondent(S): IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 30541/2024 CHEDALA USHA RANI, W/O. SEVA KANTHA RAJU, AGE 29 YEARS, R/O. THIMMAPURAM VILLAGE, ADDATEEGALA MANDAL, ALLURI SEETHARAMA RAJU DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALLURI SEETHARAMA RAJU DISTRICT AT PADERU. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, RAMPACHODAVARAM SEETHARAMA RAJU DISTRICT. THE TAHSILDAR, ADDATEEGALA MANDAL, ALLURI SEETHARAMA ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: SIVA NAGARJUNA SIDHADAPU Counsel for the Respondent(S): IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3328] NINETH DAY OF JANUARY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA CHEDALA USHA RANI, W/O. SEVA KANTHA RAJU, AGE 29 YEARS, R/O. THIMMAPURAM VILLAGE, ADDATEEGALA MANDAL, ALLURI ...PETITIONER THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALLURI SEETHARAMA RAJU THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, RAMPACHODAVARAM, SEETHARAMA ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: The prayer sought in the present Writ Petition is as under: “…to issue writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 4th respondent in interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of petitioners land an extent of Ac.1-96 cents in Sy.No.1/2 and Ac.16-53 cents in Sy.No.2 of Timmapuram Village, Addateegala Mandal, Alluri Seetharamaraju District without any notice is illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and contrary to law, consequently directing the 4th respondent not to dispossess the petitioner from an extent of Ac.1-96 cents in Sy.No.1/2 and Ac.16-53 cents in Sy.No.2 of Timmapuram Village, Addateegala Mandal, Alluri Seetharamaraju District without fallowing due procedure of law and pass..” 2. Heard S. Siva Nagarjuna, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner and Sri K. Arjun Chowdary, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. 3. Sri K. Arjun Chowdhary, Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue has submitted the Written Instruction furnished by the Tahsildar of Addategala Mandal, dated 24.01.2025. Copy of it is supplied to the Counsel for the Writ Petitioner. The same is taken on record. 4. The relevant portion of the Written Instruction is usefully extracted here under: “The 4th Respondent never went to the subject land and not obstructed the cultivation of the petitioner and not threatened the petitioner that they will demolish the trees. With an apprehension only, that the Respondents may dispossess the petitioner fro the land measuring an extent of Ac. 1.96 Cts in RS No.1/2 and Ac.16.53 Cts in RS No.2 of the subject village at any time, the petitioner made the present allegations in the present petition. After disposal of the LTRP Case only by the Special Deputy Collector (TW), Rampachodavaram, further action will be taken as per the orders of the Special Deputy Collector (TW), Rampachodavaram in the subject LTRP Case. Therefore, the allegations made by the Petitioner are false and hence the Writ Petition is not tenable.” 3 5. The above extract would indicate that the Official Respondents have neither visited the subject land nor they have obstructed the cultivation of the Petitioner, nor that they have threatened the Petitioner that they will demolish the trees. 6. Having regard to the above extract, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of this Writ Petition, at the admission stage, without going into the merit, directing the Official Respondents to follow the due process of law, if any coercive action is sought to be initiated against the Writ Petitioner in the future. 7. With these observations and directions, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. 8. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. _________________________________ GANNAMANENIRAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Dt: 29.01.2025 DSV