APHC010430872019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3209] WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA WRIT PETITION NO: 20680/2019 Between: 1. MAMIDI DHANUMJAYA, S/O GOPALAIAH, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, CULTIVATION, R/O MARLAGUNTA VILLAGE, DAKKILI MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 2. MAMIDI GIRIJA, W/O PALAMINETRA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, CULTIVATION, R/O MARLAGUNTA, DAKKILI VILLAGE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 3. MAMIDI SRINIVASULU, S/O PULLAIAH, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, CULTIVATION, R/O MARLAGUNTA, DAKKILI VILLAGE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 4. MAMIDI ESWARAMMA, W/O GOPAL, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, CULTIVATION, R/O MARLAGUNTA, DAKKILI VILLAGE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 5. MAMIDI RAJENDRA, S/O GOPALAIAH, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, CULTIVATION, R/O MARLAGUNTA, DAKKILI VILLAGE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (REVENUE), SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT, NELLORE. NJS,J W.P No.20680 of 2019 2 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, GUDUR, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, DAKKILI MANDAL, DAKKILI, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. CHANDRA SEKHAR ILAPAKURTI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE (AP) NJS,J W.P No.20680 of 2019 3 The Court made the following Order: Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. K Arjun Chowdary, learned Assistant Government Pleader representing the respondents. 2. The grievance of the petitioners in the present writ petition, in short, is that the respondents are making attempts to dispossess the petitioners from the lands admeasuring total extent of Ac.14.15 cents in Survey Nos.317/P 47, 317/P 44, 317/P 48, 317/P 45 and 317/P 49 situate in Marlagunta Village of Dakkili Mandal, SPSR Nellore District, which are stated to have been assigned to them, without issuing any notice or conducting survey under the provisions contemplated under Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners inter alia submits that the petitioners earlier filed W.P No.42787 of 2018, when a similar attempt was made to dispossess the petitioners from the subject matter lands. 4. Drawing the attention of this Court to the order dated 31.12.2018 in the said writ petition, the learned counsel further submits that despite the orders passed therein to the effect that the petitioners shall not be dispossessed from the subject matter land without following due process of law, the respondents again resorted to highhanded action of dispossessing the petitioners from the subject lands. He also submits that the respondents have erected a caution board stating that the land belongs to Government land and further not NJS,J W.P No.20680 of 2019 4 allowing the petitioners to enter the subject matter lands. He also contends that any action on the part of the respondents in the light of the documents filed along with the writ petition, which goes to show that the petitioners are in possession of the subject matter land and without adhering to due process of law is not sustainable, more particularly, in the light of the earlier order dated 31.12.2018 passed in W.P No.42787 of 2018. 5. Mr. K Arjun Chowdary, learned Assistant Government Pleader, while denying the allegations, made submissions on the basis of the instructions dated 19.12.2019. According to the said instructions, no DKT pattas were granted in Survey Nos.317/P47, 317/P44 and etc., of Marlagunta Village and are classified as Grazing Ground Poramboke, as per the FLR. He submits that the question of granting pattas in the land which is classified as ‘grazing field’ does not arise at all. He submits that the petitioners, under the said circumstances, are not entitled for any reliefs and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. He also seeks time to file counter-affidavit. 6. Considered the submissions made and perused the material on record, 7. It is not in dispute that on the earlier occasion, in respect of the very same subject matter of lands, the details of which are mentioned in paragraph-3 of the affidavit, the petitioners filed W.P No.42787 of 2018 and the same was disposed of vide order dated 31.12.2018, with a direction to the respondents not to dispossess the petitioners without following the due process of law. It is not the case of the respondents that subsequent to the NJS,J W.P No.20680 of 2019 5 said order, action was initiated against the petitioners. If, it is case of the respondents that the subject matter land is ‘grazing poramboke’, which cannot be assigned at all and that if the petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of the same, they are required to initiate appropriate action in accordance with law as also in terms of the order dated 31.12.2018 in W.P No.42787 of 2018. It is not known as to why such an action has not been initiated. Be that as it may. 8. In the light of the orders dated 31.12.2018 in W.P No.42787 of 2018, this Court, instead of keeping the writ petition and inviting counter-affidavit, deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition, providing that the respondent authorities shall adhere to due process of law, if any action is to be initiated in respect of the subject matter land. 9. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA Date:19.11.2025 Ksj