APHC010019612021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 1405/2021 Between: Dakshina Murthy and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND State Of Andhra Pradaesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. S PARINEETA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. V VINOD K REDDY (SC FOR ZP MPDO GP) 3. Mattegunta.Sudhir,Standing Counsel For Z.P.Ps,M.P.Ps,Gram Panchayats The Court made the following order: The grievance of the petitioners, in short, is that the respondent authorities are trying to interfere with their rights over the land admeasuring Ac.0.14 cents in Sy.No.55/2C situated in Koppedu Revenue Village fields, Nindra Mandal, Chittor District, without following due process of law. 2. Heard Sri B.V.Durga Prasad, learned counsel representing learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri M.Sudhir, learned Standing counsel for Panchayat and Sri Krishna Praneeth, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit contended that, the respondent authorities have occupied Ac.0.02 cents of petitioners subject land for construction of Gram Sachivalayam and now they are trying to construct Rythu-Bharosa Kendram on the first floor of said Gram Sachivalayam and compound wall around the office by exceeding the extent of land already occupied by them and further trying to dispossess them from the subject land. As such prayed to pass appropriate orders protecting their interest. 4. Whereas, learned Standing counsel on counter, submitted that, the respondents never interfered with the rights over the subject land for construction of Gram Sachivalayam and Rythu Barosa Kendram as alleged by the petitioners. Accordingly prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 5. Recording the above submission, learned counsel for the petitioners prayed to dispose of the writ petition. 6. The grievance of the petitioners is that respondent authorities are interfering with their possession over the subject property. However, in the counter filed by the respondents, they have categorically stated that they are not interfering with the rights over the subject property. In view of the same, as the respondents are not interfering with the subject property, there remains nothing for adjudication on merits. As such this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition with the following direction: The respondent authorities are directed not to interfere with the subject property, except under due process of law. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI BRS