::1:: APHC010071862024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3208] FRIDAY,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 3866/2024 Between: 1. GOGADA CHANDRAMMA, W/O DURGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O. CHINNAORAMPADDU, OBULAVARIPALLE, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. 2. NEDARLA ESWARAMMA,, W/O PARUSURAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/O. CHINNAORAMPADDU, OBULAVARIPALLE, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. 3. DANTIA LAKSHUMMA,, W/O NARASAIAH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O. CHINNAORAMPADDU, OBULAVARIPALLE, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. 4. DANTIA SIRINIVASULU,, S/O PENCHALAIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O. CHINNAORAMPADDU, OBULAVARIPALLE, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. 5. ALLA NARASIMHULU,, S/O THIRUPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O. CHINNAORAMPADDU, OBULAVARIPALLE, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. 6. KOPPALA SEKHAR,, S/O RAMACHANDRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O. CHINNAORAMPADDU, OBULAVARIPALLE, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. 7. YELAKKA CHARLA CHANDRAIAH,, S/O VENKATAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O. CHINNAORAMPADDU, ::2:: OBULAVARIPALLE, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. 8. SIRIYALA KUMARI,, W/O SUBRAHMANYAM, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O. CHINNAORAMPADDU, OBULAVARIPALLE, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. 9. DASARAI LAKSHMI NARASAMMA,, V//3 CHINNABBI, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/O. CHINNAORAMPADDU, OBULAVARIPALLE, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. 10.NAGELLA PITCHAIAH,, S/O SUBBANNA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/O. CHINNAORAMPADDU, OBULAVARIPALLE, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. 11.NAGELLA ADHAIAH,, S/O. SUBBANNA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O. CHINNAORAMPADDU, OBULAVARIPALLE, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. 12.NAGALLA VENKATASUBBAIAH,, S/O SUBBANNA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O. CHINNAORAMPADDU, OBULAVARIPALLE, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. 13.GALANNA GARI NARASIMHULU, , S/O YELLAIAH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O. CHINNAORAMPADDU, OBULAVARIPALLE, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. 14.NAGALLA SUBAMMA,, W/O MASTANAIAH, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/O. CHINNAORAMPADDU, OBULAVARIPALLE, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. 15.NAGALLA SANKARAIAH,, S/O SUBBANNA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O. CHINNAORAMPADDU, OBULAVARIPALLE, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. 16.GALI SUBARAYUDU,, S/O PEDDA YELLAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O. CHINNAORAMPADDU, OBULAVARIPALLE, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. 17.SMT. NAGALLA NIRMALA,, W/O SUBBARAYUDU, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O. CHINNAORAMPADDU, OBULAVARIPALLE, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. ::3:: 18.NAGELLA RAMAIAH,, S/O ROSAIAH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O. CHINNAORAMPADDU, OBULAVARIPALLE, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. 19.BURRU SUBBANNA,, S/O SUBBANNA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/O. CHINNAORAMPADDU, OBULAVARIPALLE, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. 20.POTHINENI SHANKARAIAH,, S/O. GANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, R/O. CHINNAORAMPADDU, OBULAVARIPALLE, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. 21.GALI SUBRAHMANYAM,, S/O DHARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/O. CHINNAORAMPADDU, OBULAVARIPALLE, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. 22.GALI VENKATARAMANA,, S/O GURAVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O. CHINNAORAMPADDU, OBULAVARIPALLE, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. 23.NAGALLA VENKATASUBBAIAH,, S/O ROSAIAH, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/O. CHINNAORAMPADDU, OBULAVARIPALLE, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. 24.MUKKA RAMESH KUMAR REDDY,, S/O. RAMASUBBA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O. CHINNAORAMPADDU, OBULAVARIPALLE, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. 25.MUKKA JANARADHAN REDDY,, S/O NARASIMHULU, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O. CHINNAORAMPADDU, OBULAVARIPALLE, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. 26.CHOPPA NARAYANA REDDY,, S/O RAMIREDDY, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O. CHINNAORAMPADDU, OBULAVARIPALLE, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT, ::4:: SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI. 2.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT, RAYACHOTI 3.THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, RAJAMPET REVENUE DIVISION, RAJAMPET, ANAMAYYA DISTRICT. 4.THE TAHSILDAR, OBULAVARIPALLI MANDAL, OBULAVARIPALLI, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. C.T IS AMENDED AS PER THE COURT ORDER DT 28.02.2024 VIDE ORDER PASSED IN I.A.NO 02 OF 2024. ...RESPONDENT(S): This Court made the following ORDER: 1. This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the Petitioners for the following relief: “to issue an order, direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent authorities more particularly the 3rd and 4th respondents herein in trying to interfere and dispossess the petitioners herein from their house site patta granted in Sy. No 1908/1 in an extent of Ac.2.50 cents of Chinnaorampadu Revenue Village, Obulavaripalli Mandal, Annamanaiah Districts as highly arbitrary, illegal, null and void and against the principles of natural justice and norms of the public policy and violative of fundamental rights apart from Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct the respondent authorities not to interfere with petitioners house sites in the above said land and to pass such…” 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents. ::5:: 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondents are interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners’ house-plots admeasuring Ac.2.50 cents in Sy.No.1908/1, situated at Chinnaorampadu Revenue Village, Obulavaripalli Mandal, Annamayya District, and are attempting to dispossess the petitioners from the said property without following due process of law. Hence, the present Writ Petition is filed. 4. The learned Government Pleader submits that, as per the counter affidavit of the 4th respondent, the land in Sy.No.1908 (Ac.8.96) is classified as Dotted Land. Records show that 62 house site pattas of 0.03 cents each were issued in 2001 with Gram Panchayat approval. The land is still vacant, and the petitioners are not in possession. Under B.S.O. 21, beneficiaries must occupy or construct within 6/12 months, but even after 22 years no construction has been made. . As they are not in possession, the question of dispossession does not arise. The allegation that authorities asked them to surrender pattas or land is denied. Action for resumption of land for public purposes will be taken as per law on receiving instructions from the District Administration. 5. Considering the submissions of both learned counsel and on perusal of the record, and in view of the counter affidavit filed by the 4th respondent, this Court is of the considered view that the Writ Petition can ::6:: be disposed of by directing the respondent authorities not to interfere with the petitioners’ peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property. However, if the respondents propose to take any action affecting the petitioners’ possession, they shall do so strictly in accordance with due process of law. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications if any pending, shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE D. RAMESH Dt:14.11.2025 klk ::7:: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D. RAMESH WRIT PETITION No.3866 of 2024 Dt:14.11.2025 klk 68