IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSANDAND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAFT WRIT PETITIONNO: 6433 OF 2020 Between: Y.Durgamba, W/o.Y.Sanyasi Lingam, Aged about 65 years, Occ- House Wife, R/o.Door No.39/625, Aravinda Nagar, Patel Road, Kadapa, Y.S.R District. ...Petitioner. AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. The District Collector, Kadapa, Y.S.R District,. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kadapa Revenue Division, Y.S.R. District. 4. The Tahsildhar, Kadapa Mandal, Y.S.R 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 an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents No.2 to 4 in interfering the petitioner's rights over the land in an extent of Ac.2.00 Cents in Sy.No.419/1 of Chinna Chowk Village, Kadapa, Y.S.R District stating that the same is required for allotment of house sites for Weaker Section People without adhering to due process of law as arbitrary, illegal, colorable exercise of power and contrary to well established legal principles apart from being volatile of the fundamental and Constitutional rights guaranteed to the petitioner under Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent No.4 not to interfere with the petitioner's rights over the land in an extent of Ac.2.00 Cents in Sy.No.419/1 of Chinna Chowk Village, Kadapa, Y.S.R District lA NO: 1 OF 2020 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 pleased to direct the respondent No. 4 and his subordinates not to interfere with the petitioner's rights over the land in an extent of Ac.2.00 Cents in Sy.No.419/1 of Chinna Chowk Village, Kadapa, Y.S.R District, without adhering to due process of law. : SRI. : SRI. V R REDDY KOWURI Counsel for the Petitioner Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: TCDSJ WP_6433 2020 1 APHC010105632020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3505] TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION No.6433/2020 Between: Y.durgamba ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.VR REDDY KOWURI Counsel for the Respondent{S): 1.GP FOR REVENUE (AP) The Court made the following: TCDSJ ' WP_6433_2020 2 ORDER:- The petitioner claims that she purchased land admeasuring an extent of Ac.3.60 cents in Sy.No.419/1 of Chinna Chowk Village, Kadapa, YSR District, by virtue of a registered Sale Deed dated 03.09.1979 vide document No.4285/1979, from one Sri Tupakula Venkatappa, who inturn purchased the said property from one Sri K.Chinna Gurappa through Registered Sale Deed dated 16.05.1975 vide document No.1829 of 1975. The said Sri K.Chinna Gurappa inturn purchased the same from one Sri Govindharajulu through a registered Sale Deed dated 18.03.1972 vide document No.965/1972. It is further case of the petitioner that, when the respondents tried to dispossess her from the subject land on the ground that the same was required for allotment of house sites in favor of flood victims, she filed a writ petition vide WP No.24137 of 2001. It is her further case that, initially this Court by order dated 23.11.2001 directed the respondents to maintain status quo and eventually the said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 15.11.2008 granting liberty to her to submit a detailed 2. WP 6433^ 3 respondent therein within a period of four representation to the 4 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. of the petitioner that, pursuant to It is further case order passed by this Court in the above writ petition she made 3. respondent and when there was no representation to the 4 she claims that she made a representation to the action, government and the same is further stated that the 2 the 4"' respondent, accordingly a report dated 22.04.2016 was forwarded to the 2'^'^ respondent. It was respondent called for a report from nd extent of Ac. 1.50 submitted stating that land admeasuring an cents in Sy.No.419/1 of Chinna Chowk Village, Kadapa District assigned in favor of one Sri Govindharajulu, who inturn sold was to the vendors of the petitioner. It is further case despite making representation the 4 the order dated 15.11.2008 in WP No.24137 of orders on the said the said property of the petitioner that respondent as per 2001, the 4^^ respondent without passing any interfere with the possession of the representation, tried to ground that the subject land is required for petitioner on the distribution of house site pattas to the weaker section. It Is further of the petitioner that without issuing notice or following the case TCDS,J WP 6433 2020 4 due process of law the 4^'' respondent continued interfere with her possession, she filed the present writ petition. On the other hand, the 4*^ respondent filed counter affidavit inter alia contending that, originally land to an extent of Ac.3.60 cents in Sy.No.419/1 was assigned in favor of one Sri T. Govindharajulu on 04.02.1969. It is further stated that the said Govindharajulu violated the conditions of DKT patta inasmuch as he has alienated the subject land in favor of third parties. In view of the same, action was initiated against the original assignee and the land was resumed by duly cancelling the patta granted in his favor by order dated 06.07.1994 by making necessary entries in the revenue records. It is further stated that, subsequently house 4. site pattas were granted to journalists and at present there are existing houses over the subject land which is locally called as journalist colony. It is specifically averred in the counter affidavit that, the petitioner was never in possession of the land. It is categorically stated in the counter affidavit that pursuant to order dated 15.11.2008 in WP No.24137 of 2001, the petitioner did not submit any representation. It is further stated that, after a long lapse of seven years, she submitted a representation to the government seeking to issue no objection certificate in respect of I ri WP 6433 « 5 ■ ' t-t subject land for construction of commercial complex. With the above contentions the respondents prayed to dismiss the writ petition. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned 5. Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. Perused material available on record. 6. The present writ petition is filed questioning the action of the respondents in trying to dispossessing the petitioner from land in dispute without issuing any notice and without following the due procedure contemplated under law. It is not in dispute that the petitioner filed writ petition vide WP No.24137 of 7. 2001 which was disposed of by order dated 15.11.2008, granting liberty to the petitioner to file a detailed representation to the Tahsildar within four weeks from the date of the order. It was further directed that, if such a representation is received, the same shall be disposed of after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Admittedly, the petitioner did not file any representation pursuant to the said order passed by this Court. On perusal of the order passed by this Court in the above writ petition, it is clear that the respondents have filed counter affidavit TCDSJ WP 6433_2020 P 6 stating that the subject land was initially assigned in favor of one Sri T. Govindharajulu on 04.02.1969 vide patta No.866. It was further stated that as the original assignee has not brought the land under cultivation and sold the same to Sri K.C.Gurrappa, the assignment was cancelled after following due process of law and the land was resumed to government by order dated 06.07.1994. The said resumption order attained finality. By observing so, this Court directed the petitioner to submit a detailed representation to the Tahsildar. Admittedly, the petitioner did not file any representation as per the said order. Further, on perusal of report dated 22.04.2016, it is clear that the petitioner made a representation to the government seeking to issue no objection certificate in respect of subject land for constructions of commercial complex. From the above, it is clear that, the petitioner without adhering to the order passed by this Court in the earlier round of litigation, claiming right over the subject land. Further, it is within the knowledge of the petitioner that the subject land was originally assigned in favor of one Sri T. Govindharajulu and later the same was resumed to government on 06.07.1994 by duly cancelling the assignment made in his favor. Further, it is also not in dispute that the petitioner is claiming right over the WP_6433 7 subject lands by virtue of a registered sale deed from her vendors who inturn purchased from the original assignee Sri T. Govindharajulu. It is pertinent to mention that the Act 9 of 77 prohibits alienation of assigned lands. In the case on hand, though the petitioner is aware of the fact that the land was resumed, she has not taken any steps to challenge the said order or did not make any representation to the 4^^ respondent as per order dated 15.11.2008 passed in WP No.24137 of 2001. The representation said to have been made by the petitioner i seeking to issue no objection to construct IS commercial complex over the land in dispute, which is not in tune with the order passed by this court in the earlier round of litigation. 8. The counsel for the petitioner would strenuously contend that the alleged DKT patta granted in favor of original assignee does not contain fasli year and therefore the same cannot be taken into consideration. The argument advanced the counsel for the petitioner cannot be countenanced inasmuch as, merely because the DKT patta did not contain the fasli will not change the nature and classification subject land will not loose its character of assigned land. Further, by year. of the land. The TCDSJ WP_6433 2020 8 nothing is placed on record by the petitioner to show that the subject land in private patta land. 9. Further, it was categorically averred in the counter affidavit subsequent to the resumption order dated 06.07.1994, the 4^'' respondent granted house site pattas in favor of journalists, who inturn constructed residential houses. The is not denied by the petitioner by filing reply affidavit. Further, the petitioner also did not file any document to show that she is in possession of the land in question. same 10. As already noted supra, the petitioner failed to submit representation to the 4*^ respondent as per order dated 15.11.2008, passed in WP No.24137 of 2001, cannot maintain the present writ petition. Apart from the same, the subject land was resumed on 06.07.1994 and subsequently house site pattas were distributed in favor of journalists. From the above, it is clear that the petitioner is not in possession of the land in dispute, therefore, the question of dispossessing her from the subject land does not arise. WP 6433_ 9 For the foregoing reasons, there are no merits in the writ petition and accordingly the same is dismissed. No order as to costs. 11. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- A VIJAYA BABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, One CC to SRI. V R REDDY KOWUR+Advocate [OPUC] Two CCS to GP FOR REVENUE (AP) ,High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 3. Three CD Copies 1. 2. ksr HIGH COURT DATED:08/04/2025 ORDER WP.No.6433 of 2020 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS