1 APHC010605382024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3328] THURSDAY ,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 6/2025 Between: 1. B RAMANJULU, S/O. B. CHINAGULU, AGED 74 YEARS, FARMER, R/O. BURRALADINNE PALII, T. SUNDUPALLI (M), YSR KADAPA (ANNAMAYYA) DISTRICT 2. B. ASHOK,, S/O. B. SREENIVASULU, AGED 44 YEARS. AGRICULTURIST, R/O. BURRALADINNE PALLI, T. SUNDUPALLI (M), YSR KADAPA (ANNAMAYYA)DISTRICT ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, AP SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT (YSR KADAPA), AT RAYACHOTY. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT, AT RAYACHOTY. 4. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, SURVEY AND LAND RECORDS, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT, AT RAYACHOTY. 5. THE TAHSILDAR, T. SUNDUPALLI (M), ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. 6. THE MANDAL SURVEYOR, T. SUNDUPALLI (M), ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. 7. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, RAYACHOTY RURAL CIRCLE, RAYACHOTY, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. 2 8. THE SUBINSPECTOROF POLICE, T. SUNDUPALLI PS, T. SUNDUPALLI, ANNAMAYYA (YSR) DISTRICT. 9. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, T. SUNDUPALLI GRAM PANCHAYAT, T. SUNDUPALLI (M), YSR KADAPA (ANNAMAYYA) DISTRICT. 10. B JAYARAM, S/O. RAMANNA, AGED 45 YEARS, R/O. BURRALADINNE PALLI, T. SUNDUPALLI (M), YSR KADAPA (ANNAMAYYA) DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. RAJA REDDY KONETI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. MADHANU SUDHEER 2. GP FOR HOME 3. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORAL ORDER: Heard Sri Dharani Kumar B, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Raja Reddy Koneti, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner, Sri K. Arjun Chowdhary, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and Sri P. Ajay Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home. 2. The prayer sought in the present Writ Petition is as under: “It is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue any writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the 2ndrespondent in conducting Vigilance Enquiry as sought by the 1strespondent vide Memo No.REV01- LANAOCCLV/(DISC)/33/2024-Vig.III, dt: 12-04-2024 and Memo No. REV01-LANA0CCLV/80/2024-VIG-III- 1, dt:11-11-2024in pursuance of my complaint dt: 28- 03-2024 as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the 2ndrespondent to conduct Vigilance enquiry in the interests of justice and pass such other order or 3 orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 3. Sri K. Arjun Chowdhary, Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue has submitted the Written Instruction furnished by the District Collector, Annamayya District dated 28.01.2025. Sri P. Ajay Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home has also submitted the Written Instruction furnished by the Station House Officer, T. Sundupalli. Copies of the Written Instructions of both the Departments are supplied to the Counsel for the Writ Petitioner and the same are taken on record. 4. The Written Instruction furnished by the SHO, T. Sundupalli, would indicate that the Writ Petitioner and the Unofficial Respondent No.10 belong to the same family and that there is bad blood between the family members and that there is likelihood of breach of law and order with regard to the disputed area. The Written Instructions would also indicate that there were some previous proceedings where survey was done and the same was demarcated by laying the stones. Surveyor has also made markings on the wall with regard to the encroached portions by the Unofficial Respondent No.10. It is also stated that the Unofficial Respondent No.10 has applied paint in order to efface the markings made by the surveyor for the purpose of demolishing the encroached portions. It is also stated that the Respondent No.10 has removed the stones which are placed by the surveyor after the survey was conducted. 5. The Written Instructions furnished by the District Collector would indicate that the Representation submitted by the Writ Petitioner would be duly acted upon. It is also stated that the Representation which is submitted by the Writ Petitioner on 28.03.2024 could not be acted-on immediately in view of the ensuing General Elections and the Assembly Elections and that the Enquiry would be initiated in response to the Representation of the Writ Petitioner in due course. 4 6. Having regard to the contents of the Written Instructions, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of this Writ Petition, at the admission stage, without going into the merit, directing the District Collector, Annamayya District (Respondent No.2) to act on the Representation submitted by the Writ Petitioner dated 28.03.2024 and complete the process of Enquiry within a period of six weeks from today and communicate the outcome of such Enquiry to the Writ Petitioner forthwith. 7. This Court has given six weeks time to the District Collector, Annamayya District (Respondent No.2) to complete the Enquiry and communicate the outcome of the Enquiry because the Court has taken note of the fact that the Elections were completed by June, 2024 and the District Collector had six months’ time to act on it. Therefore, this Court takes judicial notice of the fact that for six months, there is inaction on the part of the Official Respondents. 8. With the above observations and directions, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. 9. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. _________________________________ GANNAMANENIRAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Dt: 30.01.2025 Vns