APHC010388732025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 20223 OF 2025 Between: A Kalavathi, W/o. A Konda Reddy, Aged about 49 years, Occ Housewife, R/o.D.No.1-39, Regatipalli Village, Dharmavaram Mandal, Anantapur District. ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. The District Collector, Anantapur District, Anantapur. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmavaram, Anantapur District. 4. The Tahsildar, Dharmavaram Mandal Anantapur District. ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring by the action of Respondent No. 4 in issuing proceedings vide Rc.No. 142/2025/A dated 10.06.2025 for resumption of petitioner's land an extent of Ac.0.940 cents in Sy.No.472-2 and an extent of Ac. 1.040 in Sy.No.471-4 in total an extent of Ac. 1.9800 cents situated at Regatipalli Village, Dharmavaram Mandal, Anantapur District under BSO 15(12)(3), without conducting enquiry and beyond his jurisdiction and contrary to the Board Standing Orders as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Principles of natural justice and property rights as guaranteed under Article 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently set-aside the same and further direct the 4th respondent not to dispossess the petitioner from the above said land and pass. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be respondent not to dispossess the Petitioner from the th pleased to direct the 4 agricultural land an extent of Ac.0.940 cents in Sy.No.472-2 and an extent of Ac. 1.040 in Sy.No.471-4 in total an extent of Ac. 1.9800 cents situated at Regatipalli Village, Dharmavaram Mandal, Anantapur District by suspending the proceedings issued by the 4th respondent vide Rc.No. 142/2025/A dated 10.06.2025, pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner; SRI K NARSI REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following Order: / APHC010388732025 / IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE [3330] PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 20223/2025 Between: 1.A KALAVATHI, W/0. A KONDA REDDY. AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE, R/O.D.NO.1-39. REGATIPALLI VILLAGE, DHARMAVARAM MANDAL, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE STATE OF AP. REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR. ANANTAPUR DISTRICT, ANANTAPUR. 3.THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, DHARMAVARAM, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. 4.THE TAHSILDAR, DHARMAVARAM MANDAL ANANTAPUR 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 or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus aggrieved by the action of the Respondent No. 4 in issuing proceedings vide Rc.No. 142/2025/A dated 10.06.2025 for resumption of petitioner's land an extent of Ac.0.940 cents in Sy.No.472-2 and an extent of Ac. 1.040 in Sy.No.471-4 in total an extent of Ac. 1.9800 cents situated at Regatipalli Village, Dharmavaram Mandal, Anantapur District under BSO 15(12)(3), without conducting enquiry and beyond his jurisdiction and contrary to the Board Standing Orders is illegal, arbitrary, violative of Principles of natural justice and property rights as guaranteed under Article 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently set- I s 2 aside the same and further direct the 4th resnondent dispossess the petitioner from the above said iand and pasrind lAJJOMOF 2025 not to pass \ Potition undor Soction 151 ppp • xl sisliWiiii and pass and pass ' P®'i«on Counsel for the Petitioner 1.K NARSI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S)- 1.GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the follow! ng: I' / 3 ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the following relief/s:- “...to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus aggrieved by the action of the Respondent No. 4 in issuing proceedings vide Rc. No. 142/2025/A dated 10.06.2025 for resumption of petitioner’s land an extent of Ac.0.940 cents in Sy.No.472-2 and an extent of Ac. 1.040 cents in Sy.No.471-4 in total an extent of Ac. 1.9800 cents situated at Regatipalli Village, Dharmavaram Mandal, Anantapur District under BSO 15(12)(3), without conducting enquiry and beyond his jurisdiction and contrary to the Board Standing Orders is illegal, arbitrary, violative of Principles of natural justice and property rights as guaranteed under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently set-aside the same and further direct the 4th respondent not to dispossess the petitioner from the above said land and pass... ” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents. The 4th respondent-Tahsildar, vide proceedings dated 3. 10.06.2025, passed an order resuming the land by invoking BSO 15(12)(3), on the ground that the land assigned to the petitioner had not been brought under cultivation, remained vacant, and was allowed to remain barren, based on the report submitted by the Village Revenue Officer (VRO). The said order dated 10.06.2025 was challenged in the present writ petition on the ground that the 4th 4 X. respondent had no jurisdiction to cancel the patta granted in favour of the petitioner. If at all any violation under BSO 15(12)(3) is alleged, the 4th respondent is required to recommend action to the Government. However, the 4th respondent, without conducting any enquiry and without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, passed the impugned order dated 10.06.2025. Therefore, the petitioner sought to set aside the said order on the ground that it infringes Articles 14, 21, and 300-A of the Constitution of India. The petitioner relied upon the judgment of this Court in W.P. No.17994 of 2025 dated 16.07.2025, wherein the learned Single Judge, after considering the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Nasir Ahmad vs. Assistant Custodian Ganeral, Evacuee Property, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow and Ors^. and UMC Technologies Private Limited vs. Food Corporation of India and Ors.^, set aside the impugned proceedings and remitted the matter to the 4th respondent with a direction to issue a fresh notice clearly setting out the irregularities and alleged illegalities, thereby enabling the petitioner therein to submit a proper explanation. The 4th respondent was further directed to follow the principles of natural justice by providing opportunity of hearing and to pass a reasoned order, addressing all 4. an ' (1980) 3 see 1 ^(2021) 2 see 551 5 defences raised by the petitioner, including on the question of jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the petitioner requested this Court to pass a 5. similar order in the present case. The learned Assistant Government Pleader fairly conceded to such a direction and did not dispute the applicability of the judgment relied upon by the petitioner’s counsel. Accordingly, the present Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the 4th respondent to issue a fresh notice setting out the irregularities and alleged illegalities, thereby enabling the petitioner to submit a proper explanation. Upon receiving the explanation, the 4th respondent shall follow the principles of natural justice by providing the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and shall pass a reasoned order in accordance with law. It is needless to mention that the petitioner is entitled to raise all available defences, including the question of jurisdiction. There shall be no order as to costs. 6. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any shall stand closed. Sd/- B. CHITTI JOSEPH ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. District Collector, Anantapur District, Anantapur. Divisional Officer, Dbarmavaram, Anantapur District. 2. The 3. The Revenue 4. The Tahsildar, Dharmavaram Mandal Anantapur District. 5. One CC to Sri K NARSI REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 6. TwoCCsto GP for REVENUE, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 7. Two CD Copies vna HIGH COURT \ \ \ DATED: 11/08/2025 ORDER WP NO. 20223 OF 2025 AUDi zo /o 27 OCT 7025 m is; & DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS