Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 42369 (AP)

P ANASUYA v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

WP/36124/2025 · 2025-12-25

Subba Reddy Satti

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010697482025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] FRIDAY,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 36124/2025 Between: 1. P ANASUYA, W/O. P. KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O. 3-65, B.C. COLONY, BALIJA KANDRIGA, KRISHNAJAMMAPURAM, PALASAMUDRAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT, A.P.SECRETARIAT AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT AT CHITTOOR 3. THE JOINT COLLECTOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT AT O/O DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CHITTOOR 4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, NAGARI REVENUE DIVISION, CHITTOOR DISTRICT 5. THE TAHSILDAR, PALASAMUDRAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents, more particularly the Respondent No. 5, in interfering with the petitioners peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property admeasuring an extent of Ac. 4.77 cents in Sy. No. 179A of Krishnajammapuram village, Palasamudram Mandal, Chittoor District as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, contrary to the principles of natural justice besides being violative of articles 14, 21 and 300(A) of the constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents, more particularly the Respondent No. 5, not to interefere with the petitioners peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property situated in an extent of Ac. 4.77 cents in Sy. No. 179A of Krishnajammapuram village, Palasamudram Mandal, Chittoor District and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No. 5 to not to interfere into the petitioner’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property admeasuring an extent of Ac. 4.77 cents in Sy. No. 179A of Krishnajammapuram village, Palasamudram Mandal, Chittoor District pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P JAGADISH CHANDRA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: :: ORDER :: Heard Sri K. Chetan, learned counsel representing Sri P. Jagadish Chandra Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri B.V. Satyanarayana, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, appeared for the respondents. 2. The petitioner was assigned an extent of Ac.4.77 cents in Sy.No.179A of Krishnajammapuram Village, Palasamudram Mandal, Chittoor District vide Ex.P1. Thereafter, the petitioner's name was updated in the Record of Rights, vide Exs. P2 to P4. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that respondent No.5 is trying to dispossess the petitioner of the aforementioned property, without following due process of law. 4. Sri B.V. Satyanarayana, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, on instructions, while not disputing the assignment of land to the petitioner vide Ex.P1 and updation of Record of Rights vide Exs.P2 to P4, would submit that respondent No.5 is not interfering with the petitioner’s possession of the property. He would further submit that if the land of the petitioner is required for any public purpose, respondent No.5 will follow the due procedure of law. 5. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission with the consent of both the learned counsel, directing respondent No.5 not to interfere with the petitioner’s possession of the aforementioned property, without following due process of law. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date: 26.12.2025 TVN 42 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION No.36124 OF 2025 Date: 26.12.2025 TVN