APHC010022822025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] WEDNESDAY ,THE FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 2700/2025 Between: Pindi Shrilaxmi @ Shrilaxmi Shriniwas Rao ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. PANGI RAJU BABU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: 2 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 2700/2025 ORDER: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India seeking the following reliefs:- “to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd to 7th Respondents in not initiating appropriate action upon petitioner’s representations dated 21.03.2024 and 18.12.2023 and the 8th to 10th Respondents trying to dispossess the petitioner from her land of an extent of Ac.0.58 cents situated in Sy.No.16/1 of Marripalem Village, Paravada Mandal, Anakapalli District, without following due process of law as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, without jurisdiction and violation of articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India besides violation of Principal of Natural Justice and consequently direct the 8th to 10th Respondents herein not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the land of an extent of Ac.0.58 cents situated in Sy.No.16/1 of Marripalem Village, Paravada Mandal, Anakapalli District and pass such other order. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the Government Pleader for Revenue and the learned Standing Counsel for the 7th respondent. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was granted a pattadar passbook on 07.04.2023. He further submits that even though the petitioner made an application under the Bhu Suraksha scheme, the respondents have neither taken any steps nor initiated any action against respondent Nos.8 to 3 10 who are trying to dispossess the petitioner. Hence, the present Writ Petition. 4. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for revenue and the learned Standing Counsel for the 7th respondent submits that even as per the affidavit of the petitioner, the subject land was converted into house plots and some were alienated in favour of the third parties and the sale deeds were also executed in favour of the third parties in the year 2012. Since the possession of the subject property was parted to third parties, even as per the affidavit of the petitioner, the petitioner is entitled only to invoke the appropriate legal proceedings against respondent Nos.8 to 10 and other subsequent third party purchasers before the Court of law. As such, the Writ Petition is not maintainable. 5. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for the Revenue and the learned Standing Counsel for the 7th respondent and without going into the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present Writ Petition can be disposed of directing the petitioner to initiate appropriate legal proceedings against respondent Nos.8 to 10, who are unofficial respondents and who occupied the land and converted the said land into house plots before the Court of law having jurisdiction over the subject property. 4 6. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel miscellaneous application, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 05.02.2025 TTPPSS 5 402 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 2700/2025 05.02.2025 TTPPSS