APHC010237202018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3209] MONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA WRIT PETITION NO: 10372 OF 2018 Between: 1. K.LAXMI PARVATHI, KUKKULURI LAXMIPARVATHI, W/O CHINTAYYA , AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, R/O D.NO.9-55, KOTHAPETA, DURGADA VILLAGE, GOLLAPROLU MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT E.G.DT ...PETITIONER AND 1. STATE OF AP., THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHYATH RAJ DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. GUNTUR 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KAKINADA, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, 3. THE MPDO GOLLAPROLU, GOLLAPROLUMANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT 4. THE DURGADA GRAM PANCHAYATH, DURGADA VILLAGE, GOLLAPROLUMANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER/PANCHYATH SECRETARY, ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K V SESHAGIRI RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION (AP) 2. N SRIHARI (Standing Counsel for ZPP MPP and GRAM PANCHAYAT) 2 The Court made the following ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.K.V.Seshagiri Rao. Also heard Mr.P.Chaitanya Srinivas, learned counsel representing Mr.Y.Koteswara Rao, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4. 2) The present Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief: “…to issue an Order or a Direction or a Writ more one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring the action of the respondents herein for not implementing Fair Compensation and Transparency in land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, and not following any due process of law and without paying any compensation while proceeding further for interfering in her vacant cite and house, as illegal, arbitrary, autocratic, ultra vires and against to the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents herein to pay compensation by following due process of law by following the Fair Compensation and Transparency in land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, pertaining to the petitioners’ housenO.9-55, Assessment No.1236, situated at Kotapeta in Durgada village of Gollaprolu Mandal, E.G.Dist., in the interests of justice and consequently not to dispossess and not to interfere from her vacant site and house and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.” 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions with reference to the averments made in the Writ Petition, the purport of which is that the respondent Nos.3 and 4 are attempting to dispossess the petitioner from the subject matter property without following procedure as contemplated under Law. 4) Whereas, the learned counsel for the 4th respondent has drawn the attention of this Court to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 4th 3 respondent submits that in the survey conducted by the surveyor it transpires that the petitioner occupied an extent of 51 Sq.yards and the documents on which the petitioner placing reliance are not genuine. On a query of this Court, learned counsel states that no action in the matter is taken in view of the pendency of the Writ Petition. 5) This Court has considered the submissions made. At the outset it may be appropriate to mention that the learned Judge of erstwhile High Court for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh, while granting interim directions dated 28.03.2018 made it clear that the said order will not preclude the respondents to proceed in accordance with law. In such circumstances, the submission made on behalf of the respondent Nos.3 and 4 in view pendency of the Writ Petition no action is taken cannot be appreciated. Be that as it may. 6) If the petitioner is in the unauthorized occupation of the property, the respondents necessary action in accordance with law is required to be initiated. In fact, that is the purport of the interim order referred to above. Though several aspects have been set out in the counter affidavit of the 4th respondent, this Court deems it not necessary to divulge on the same. Suffice to state that on the basis of the interim order dated 28.03.2018, it is appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition, providing that the respondents, more particularly respondent Nos.3 and 4 are at liberty to take appropriate action in respect of the subject matter property, in particular, by following due process of law and giving due opportunity to the writ petitioner. 4 7) With the above observation, the Writ petition is disposed of. No costs. 8) Consequently, the Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________ NINALA JAYASURYA, J Date:17.11.2025. Ssv 5 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA WRIT PETITION NO: 10372 OF 2018 Date:17.11.2025 Ssv