1 A IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH::AMAR (Special Original Jurisdiction) i THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF APRIL IS TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE fSr. PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 2907 OF 2020 Between: Dudala Ranga Rao, S/o D. Pothu Raju, Hindu, aged about 52 years Agruculture, Rio D.No.2-75, Velpuru Village, Tanuku Mandal, West Godavari District. ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Assignment Department, Secretariat Building, Amaravathi. 2. The District Collector, Eluru, West Godavari District, 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Eluru, West Godavari District. 4. The Tahsildar, Irgavaram Mandal, Iragavaram, West Godavari District. ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of 4th Respondent in issuing Stringent notice vide proceeding Roc.3129/2019/A dt.24-12-2019 to the petitioner for eviction of his land total an extent of Ac. 1-04 each 0.52 cents in Sy.Nos.115-1B and 120-1A situated at East Vipparru Village, Iragavaram Mandal, West Godavari District without giving any prior notice or conducting enquiry is illegal, arbitrary and in violative Articles 14, 21 and 300A of Constitution of India and also against the Principles of Natural Justice. Consequently Set aside the same as unsustainable and in contrary to the provision of AP Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act 1977 may / and Rules framed there under and direct the 4th Respondent not to dispossess the petitioner from this land without following due process of law 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 4th Respondent not to dispossess the petitioner from his land an extent of Ac.0-52 cents each in Sy.Nos.115-IB and 120-1A of East Vipparru Village, Irragavaram Mandal, West Godavari District without following due process of law, pending disposal of the main writ petition pending disposal of the above writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI N A RAMACHANDRA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 4: ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL (AP) The Court made the following: Order APHC010048302020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY ,THE TENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 2907/2Q2Q [3505] Between: Dudala Ranga Rao ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.N A RAMACHANDRA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL (AP) The Court made the following order: The petitioner claims that he is the absolute owner and possessor of land admeasuring an extent of Ac.0.52 cents each in Sy.No.115-1B and 120-1A of East Vipparru Village, Irragavaram Mandal, West Godavari District, having purchased the same by virtue of registered sale deed dated 15.10.2008. 1. 2. The petitioner further contends that since the date of purchase he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said land by cultivating the same. It is further case of the petitionerthat the name of the petitioner was also mutated in revenue records and he was issued pattadar passbook and title deed. He further contends that the 4*^ respondent issued notice dated 24.12.2019 in Form-1 and Form-ll exercising powers under Act 9 of 1977, asking the petitioner as to why he shall not be evicted from the subject land by directing him to submit explanation within a period of 15 days, in as much as the petitioner has purchased the subject land in contravention of provisions of the Act 9 of 1977. Questioning the said notice, the present writ petition is filed. On the other hand, the 4**^ respondent filed counter affidavit stating that the subject land was identified for the purpose of distribution of house site pattas to the eligible beneficiaries under Navaratnalu-Pedalandariki lllu scheme. As the petitioner purchased the property in contravention of provisions of the Act 9 of 1977, issued the impugned notice and subsequently the land was resumed after passing resumption orderji!^27.01.2020. It is further contended by the 4‘^ respondent that questioning the said order, the petitioner filed writ petition 3. vide W.P.No.6791 of 2020 and after hearing the parties, this Court allowed the said writ petition by order dated 17.03.2020 by setting aside the resumption order dated 27.01.2020 and directed the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the subject land without following due process of law. The learned Special Government Pleader would submit that in view of the order passed by this Court W.P.No.6791 of 2020, the cause in the present writ petition does not survive, in as much as the present writ petition is filed questioning the Form-ll notice dated 24.12.2019. 4. in 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Special Government Pleader for Revenue. Perused the material available on record. It is not in dispute that pursuant to the impugned notice dated 24.12.2019, the 4*'^ respondent passed resumption order on 27.01.2020. The said resumption order was challenged by way of a writ petition in W.P.No.6791 of 2020 and the same was allowed by this Court by order dated 17.03.2020. It is pertinent to mention that while allowing the writ petition, this Court specifically directed the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the land in dispute without following due process of law. Pursuant to the said order, it is represented by the Special Government Pleader that action could not be initiated in view of the pendency of the present writ petition. 6. 7. In view of the above submission, the cause in the present writ petition does not survive and accordingly the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. It is needless to mention that, the respondents are at liberty to take action in the matter in accordance with law. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, Sd/- j. sarojIa ASSISTANT registrar //TRUE COPY// To, SECTION OFFICER 1. One CC to SRI N A RAMACHANDRA MURTHY Advocate [OPUC] 2. Two CCS to GP FOR ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL (AP), High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 3. Three CD Copies gsg HIGH COURT DATED: 10/04/2025 ORDER WP.No.2907 of 2020 DISMISSING THE WP AS INFRCUTUOUS WITHOUT COSTS