IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 7831 OF 2020 Between: Katneni Ajay Kumar, S/o. Venkata Subba Rao Age 40 years, R/ o. 11917, Clems Branch Dr.Charlotte, NC 28277 USA Rep by its Power of Attorney Holder Katneni Venkata Subba Rao, S/o. Gopala Krishaniah Age 76 years, R/o. Bogapuram Village Pedavegi Mandal, West Godavari District ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh Department Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District 2. The District Collector, Krishna District Machilipatnam 3. The Sub-Collector, Nuzvidu, Krishna District. 4. The Tahsildar, A. Konduru Mandal A. Konduru, Krishna District rep. by it's Principal Secretary, Revenue 1 j ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying 4b»t-in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the order passed by the 4*^ respondent in Re. B. 20/2020 dated 14.03.2020 and in resorting to evict the petitioner from the land in an extent of Ac. 1.95 cents in Sy. No. 206-5 of Repudi Village, A. Konduru Mandal, Krishna District illegal, ultra-virus, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and contrary to the procedure established by law apart from being violative of Article 300-A of the Constitution and consequently set-aside order passed as in Re. B. 20/2020 dated 06.01.2020 by the 4*^ respondent and direct the respondents not to evict the petitioner from the land in an extent of Ac. 1.95 cents in Sy. No. 206-5 of Repudi Village, A. Konduru Mandal, Krishna District. lA NO: 1 OF 2020 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 respondents, not to evict the petitioner from the land in a extent of Ac.1.95 cents in Sy.No.206-5 of Repudi Village, A.Konduru Mandal, Krishna District. Counsel for the Petitioner :SRI. KAMBHAMPATI RAMESH BABU Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: I APHC010130902020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3505] WEDNESDAY ,THE NINTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 7831/2020 Between; Katneni Ajay Kumar, ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.KAMBHAMPATI RAMESH BABU Counsel for the Respondent{S): 1.GP FOR REVENUE (AP) The Court made the following order: The petitioner claims that he has purchased land admeasuring an extent of Ac. 1.95 cents in Sy.No.206-5 of Repudi 1. Village, A.Konduru Mandal, Krishna District by virtue of registered sale deed dated 04.03.2013 vide document No.685/2013 from his vendor Sri Chittibomma Koteswara Rao. It is further case of the petitioner that, his vendor has purchased the property from one Venkata Reddy by virtue of registered sale deed dated 23.09.2008. It is further case of the petitioner that he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property without there being any interruption from anybody. It is his further case that while things stood thus, the 4*^ respondent issued notices in Form-1 and Form-11 dated 26.02.2020 alleging that the petitioner purchased the land in 2. dispute, which was originally assigned in favour of one " Sri Juvvaboina Narasaiah, in contravention of provisiQnsj;^J\ct 9 of 1977. The petitioner was further directed to show cause as to why the land shall not be resumed and directed him to file objections to the said notice. The petitioner submitted explanation dated 05.03.2020 stating that the subject land is not an assigned land and requested the 4‘^ respondent to furnish the copy of alleged DKT patta issued in favour of his vendor and in the said explanation, the petitioner also specifically asked for personal hearing in the matter. It is further case of the petitioner that there were several transactions taken place as against the subject lands and therefore by no stretch of imagination, it can be treated as assigned land. It is further averred that without properly considering the case of the petitioner and the explanation filed by him, the 4*^ respondent passed impugned order dated 14.03.2020 whereby and whereunder the subject land is resumed. Questioning the said order dated 14.03.2020, the present writ petition is filed. On the other hand, the 4“" respondent filed counter affidavit stating that the subject land was originally assigned in favour of Sri Juvvanaboyina Narasiah, S/o Venkata Swamy. As the subject land is identified for distribution of house site pattas to weaker sections of people, and during the course of inspection, it was revealed that the petitioner is in illegal occupation of the subject land having purchased the same by registered sale deed from his vendor in contravention to Act 9 of 1977, the 4^'' respondent issued notices in Form-1 and Form-ll to both the petitioner and his vendor and thereafter passed resumption order 3. ■% under Section 4(1 )(a) of the said Act. The counter affidavit further states that as the petitioner has purchased the subject property in contravention of the provisions of Act 9 of 1977, the land was directed to be resumed as no person shall acquire rights over any assigned land either by lease, mortgage or exchange or by sale in as much as the said transaction shall be deemed to be null and void under the Act. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents. Perused the material available on record. 4. The case of the 4*'" respondent is that the land was originally assigned in favour of Sri Juvvanaboyina Narasiah, S/o Venkata Swamy. In support of the said statement, the 4*'" respondent has not placed any record to show that the said Narasaiah was actually assigned the land. Apart from the same, the counter affidavit filed is conspiciously silent with regard to the date on which the alleged assignment was made in favour of the said Narasiah. In the absence of any documentary proof to show that the land was actually assigned in favour of the said Narasiah, the contention of the 4**^ respondent cannot be believed. Apart 5. \ from the same, on perusal of the explanation submitted by the petitioner, he specifically pleaded that the subject land was private patta land and it was never assigned in favour of his vendor. In fact the petitioner also requested the 4 respondent to furnish copy of the DKT patta alleged to have been issued in favour of his vendor. Apart from the same, he also requested to afford personal hearing in the matter before passing any adverse order. Despite the same, the 4**^ respondent neither furnished the copy of alleged DKT patta nor he afforded an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and thereby the 4 respondent has miserably failed to consider the request of the petitioner and thereby violated the principles of natural justice. On this ground alone, the order impugned in the writ petition is liable to be set aside. 6. Further on perusal of the impugned order, the 4*^ respondent except stating .that the subject land is classified as Government land in revenue records i.e. as per FLR, the objections raised by the petitioner were also not adverted to while passing the order under challenge. % 7. In view of the foregoing reasons, the impugned order dated 14.03.2020 passed by the respondent is hereby set aside. Further, the 4**^ respondent is directed to issue a fresh notice to the petitioner by furnishing copy of the alleged DKT patta said to have been issued in favour of the said Narasaiah and pass appropriate orders thereon, after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending shall stand closed. if any Sd/- A. VENU GOPAL RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. OneCCto SRI. KAMBHAMPATI RAMESH BABU Advocate [OPUC] . Two CCS to GP FOR REVENUE .High Court Of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 3. Three CD Copies ksr HIGH COURT DATED:09/04/2025 ORDER WP.No.7831 of 2020 CLOSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS