APHC010106982018 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.4854 OF 2018 Between: 1. M.Nagaraju, S/o M.Venkatappa, Hindu, aged about 37 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Kotarlapalli village, Gudyanampalli Post, Penumur Mandal, Chittoor District, and others. ...Petitioners AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Thulluru Mandal, Amaravathi, Guntur District, and others. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners : Mr.T. Balaji Counsel for the Respondents: G.P. for Revenue The Court made the following ORDER: The present writ petition is filed seeking to declare the action of respondent Nos.1 to 4 in trying to dispossess the petitioners from the respective extents of the land situated in Survey No.800 of Guntipalli Revenue Village as illegal, arbitrary etc., and for a consequential direction not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners over the said extents of land. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners made submissions with reference to the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ 2 WP_4854_2018 petition, inter alia to the effect that the petitioners are enjoying the said extents of the land for more than 25 years and the respondent No.5 and his brothers, in collusion with respondent No.4, are trying to interfere their possession high-handedly and without following due process of law. He also submits that the Village Revenue Officer, Guntipalli issued a Certificate dated 05.1.2017 with regard to enjoyment of the land in survey No.800 by the petitioners. While contending that though the subject matter land has not been assigned to them as they are in possession of the land for over a period of 25 years, they cannot be dispossessed without following the procedure contemplated under law. Be that as it may. 3. The learned counsel submits that the petitioners made a representation dated 03.1.2018 to the respondent No.2 and so far no action has been taken and therefore, the writ petition may be disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 to take necessary action on the said representation. 4. On the other hand, Mr.K.Arjun Chowdary, learned Assistant Government Pleader representing respondent Nos.1 to 4 placed a copy of the written instructions dated 10.11.2025 received from respondent No.4 for perusal of this Court and seeks time for filing counter affidavit. However, as the learned counsel for the petitioners seeks for disposal of the writ petition, this Court has taken note of the contents in the said instructions. According to respondent No.4, the writ petitioners are not in possession and enjoyment of the subject matter land and therefore the question of the respondents interfering with the petitioners possession and enjoyment or attempting to dispossess them from the subject matter land does not arise at all. It is stated that the writ petitioners have approached this Court with a mala fide intention. Be that as it may. 3 WP_4854_2018 5. Though it is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that respondent No.4 is interfering with the possession of the subject land, from a reading of the representation dated 03.1.2018 (Ex.P.4), the grievance of the petitioners is that the respondent No.5 and his brothers are trying to interfere with the petitioners’ possession on the premise that they were assigned pattas in respect of the subject matter land. No allegation of respondent No.4 interfering with the petitioners’ possession was made. In the said circumstances, as the grievance of the petitioners is against private parties, they should have to invoke appropriate remedy in accordance with law. 6. On an appreciation of the submissions made, this Court see no reason to grant the relief sought for in the writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. However, the petitioners are at liberty to make appropriate fresh application to the respondent No.4 and on receipt of the same, necessary action may be taken subject to eligibility of the petitioners. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ NINALA JAYASURYA,J November 18, 2025. vasu