APHC010114382018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA WRIT PETITION No.5021 OF 2018 Between: Smt. R.Venakteswaramma, W/o. Sudarshan Reddy, aged about 58 years, r/o. H.No.41/321-2, Kothapeta, Ward No. 41, Kurnool Town, Kurnool District. ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Guntur, Guntur District, and others. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr.K.Rathanga Pani Reddy Counsel for the Respondents: G.P. for Assignment The Court made the following ORDER: Heard Mr.M.Johnson Kumar, learned counsel representing Mr.K.Rathanga Pani Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr.K.Arjun Chowdary, learned Assistant Government Pleader representing the respondents. 2. The present writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is hereby prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS 2 WP_5021_2018 declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in trying to dispossess and demolish the petitioner's house bearing No.41/321-2, Kothapeta, Kurnool Town situated in Sy.No.140/A2 admeasuring 19.5 cents even though the petitioner constructed the house and making a living for the last 40 years and subjected to property tax also and recognizing the same patta as well as Possession Certificate were granted as being illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the aforesaid house by demolition or otherwise, and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper. 3. It is the case of the petitioner, even as per the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, that she constructed a house by occupying the land in Survey No.140/A2, to which the Kurnool Municipal Corporation assigned House No.41/321–2, Kothapeta, Kurnool Town. It is her further case that she has been paying property tax to the Municipality in respect of the said house and patta in Rc.B1266/95, dated 29.4.2015 was granted in her name and the respondent No.3 is trying to dispossess the petitioner and demolish the said house in an illegal and arbitrary manner and therefore, the petitioner approached this Court. 4. The learned Assistant Government Pleader, while making submissions, has drawn the attention of this Court to the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.3 and contends that the house-site patta stated to have been granted to the petitioner vide Rc.B1266/95, dated 29.4.2015 is not tenable, that in fact such survey number does not exist. He also submits that pursuant to the complaint made by the A.P. State Waqf Board, the respondent No.2 initiated action and evicted the petitioner from the vacant land situated in Survey No.136, Kothapeta and possession was delivered to the Inspector Auditor of Waqf, Kurnool District. He also submits that at present the petitioner is in occupation of the land of an extent of Ac.0.03 cents in Survey No.135, wherein she 3 WP_5021_2018 made some construction. He submits that as the patta, which is stated to have been granted in favour of the petitioner, is not genuine, appropriate action in accordance with law would be initiated. 5. In reply to the said submissions, it is stated on behalf of the petitioner that as the petitioner has been residing in the subject matter property, even according to the respondents, any action by them, without following due procedure as contemplated in law, is not tenable. 6. This Court, on an appreciation of the rival submissions and perusing the docket order dated 16.2.2018, deems it not necessary to examine the matter further in detail. Suffice to state that even if the patta stated to have been issued to the petitioner is not genuine or fake or that she is in unauthorized occupation of the subject matter property, action has to be initiated only in accordance with law. 7. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of, providing that no coercive action in respect of the subject matter property shall be initiated except by following the procedure as contemplated under law. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ NINALA JAYASURYA,J November 18, 2025. vasu