IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE ‘-p\ O f K* oc ''b. PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR i. WRIT PETITION NO: 11879 OF 2020 Between: Gedela Lakshmamma, W/o Gedala Papinaidu Age about 70 years and R/o Koduru Village, Garividi Mandal, Vijayanagaram District. ...Petitioner AND 1. The Tahsildar, Garividi Mandal, Vijayanagaram District. 2. The Village Revenue Officer, Koduru Village, Garividi Mandal, Vijayanagaram District. 3. The District Collector, Vijayanagaram District. 4. State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary Department of Revenue, A.P. Secretariat. ...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 writ, order or direction more particularly one nature of writ of mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondents to dispossesses the private land of the Petitioner admeasuring 99 Cents i; Survey No. 54-34 (Old 54-2), situated at Koduru Village, Garividi Mandal Vijayanagaram District, and may in the trying in uprooting fully grown up mango, teak, eucalyptus and cashew trees without putting her on any notice as illegal, % arbitrary and violating the principles of natural justice and Article 21 300A of Constitution of India and against the due process of law and it is further consequently prayed that this Hon’ble Court direct the Respondents not to dispossess the Petitioner from her and pay her compensation by conducting against Respondent No. 1 and 2. and may be pleased to said land an enquiry and taking action lA NO: 1 OF 2090 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances the High Court may be the petitioner from any part of her land admeasuring 99 Cents in Survey No.54-34 (Old 54-2) situated at Koduru Village, Garividi Mandal, Vijayanagaram Village lA NO: 1 OF 2097 stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, pleased to direct the respondents not to dispossess 1. The Tahsildar, Garividi Mandal, Vijayanagaram District. 2. The Village Revenue Officer, Koduru Village, Garividi Mandal Vijayanagaram District. 3. The District Collector, Vijayanagaram District. 4. State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, A.P^ Secretariat. ...Petitioners/Respondents AND Gedela Lakshmamma, W/o Gedala Papinaidu Age about 70 years and R/0 Koduru Village, Garividi Mandal, Vijayanagaram District. ...Respondent/Petitioner Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court pleased to vacate the W.P.No. 11879 of 2020and dismiss the writ petition may be interim order granted on 21.07.2020 iin in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. RAMESH BABU Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following order: PEDAPALLI % APHC010185322020 —7 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) HEP [3505] THURSDAY .THE TENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 11879/2020 Between: Gedela Lakshmamma ...PETITIONER AND The Tahsildar and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: ...RESPONDENT(S) 1.RAMESH BABU PEDAPALLI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following order: The present writ petition is filed questioning the action of the respondents in trying to dispossess the petitioner from the land admeasuring an extent of Ac.0.99 cents in Sy.No.54-34 (old Sy.No.54-2) of Koduru Village, Garividi Mandal, Vijayanagaram District, without issuing any notice and without following the procedure contemplated under law. 1. 2. It is case of the petitioner that she purchased the subject land by virtue of registered sale deed dated 27.11.1979 vide document No.2267/1979. It is her further case that the subject land was identified for the purpose of distribution of house site pattas under Navaratnalu Scheme. In furtherance thereto, it is alleged that on 27.06.2020, the 1®‘ and 2"^^ respondents entered into the subject land and started felling the trees existing thereon, it is further contended that the respondents without issuing any notice, interfered with the possession and in fact removed the trees existing on the subject land. Questioning the said action, she approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. On the other hand, the 1®* respondent filed counter affidavit stating that the entire village was taken over under the 3. provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra (Abolition Area) Estates and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act survey was conducted. During the one Tummaganti Sanyasappadu and 1948. Subsequently, supplemental said survey, the names of Mahanti Ayyappa were recorded as D-pattadar in FCO fair adangal in respect of Survey No.54-33 and in Sy.No.54-34. Though the said names are recorded as pattadar, the same is not incorporated and the said land was kept vacant. Since there no encroachments over the subject land, it is identified for the purpose of distribution of house sites and are accordingly, the 4^^^ respondent issued 21.07.1994. Questioning the said that the writ petitioner preferred proceedings in Rc.No. 1429/1992,6 dated proceedings, it is contended a Civil Suit vide O.S.No. 104/93 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Cheepurupalli and the same dated 05.03.2002. and Decree, the petitioner was dismissed by Judgment and Decree Aggrieved by the said Judgment preferred appeal vide A.S.No.59/2003 by Judgment and Decree dated 15.02.2010. which was also dismissed 4. It is further contended by the 4 petitioner was never i land was identified for distribution respondent that the in possession of the property and the subject of house site pattas way back in the year 1994 and having challenged the said proceedings unsuccessfully in suit and the same was confirmed in appeal, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable and it is also contended that the petitioner has suppressed the filing of Civil Suit and Appeal and approached this Court, therefore prayed to dismiss the writ petition. The petitioner filed reply affidavit reiterating the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. 5. Apart from the same, she claims that she is an uneducated old lady and not aware of the filing of suit and appeal. It is further stated that, it is not within her knowledge about filing of Civil Suit and appeal as she was looked after by her husband and requested this Court to allow the writ petition. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. Perused the material available on record. 7. It is the case of the petitioner that she purchased the subject land by virtue of registered sale deed dated 22.07.1979. Except filing the registered sale deed, she did not file any documentary proof to show that she is in possession of the property. Per contra, the 4*^ respondent filed counter affidavit specifically stating that the subject land was recorded in the name of one Sri Tummaganti Sanyasappadun and Mahanti Ayyappa, as per fair adangal but the same was not incorporated in the revenue records. It is further case of the respondent that as the land was kept vacant and the same was identified for the purpose of distribution of house sites and accordingly issued proceedings dated 21.07.1994 by granting house site pattas to the eligible beneficiaries. The said proceedings were challenged by the petitioner by filing a Civil Suit in O.S.No.104/93 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge and the said suit was dismissed by Judgment Judgment was also confirmed in Appeal vide A.S.No.59/2003 by Judgment Decree dated 15.02.2010. and Decree dated 05.03.2002. The said and 8. From the above, it is clear that the petitioner is not in possession of the subject land and apart from the not file any documentary proof to show that she is i of the same. In the absence of same, she did - IS in possession any document, the contention of the petitioner that she is in possession of the property cannot be believed. % 9. On perusal of the reply affidavit filed by the petitioner, it is clear that she did not deny the factum of filing of the suit and appeal as against the proceedings dated 21.07.1994 issued by the 4*'' respondent. On the contrary, she has contended that she is unaware of the proceedings, in as much as her husband was looking after the affairs. From the above, it is clear that the subject land was identified way back in the year 1994 and the house site pattas were granted in favour of the 3*^^ parties. Hence it is clear that the 10. petitioner is not in possession and she miserably failed to substantiate her claim over the subject land. Since the petitioner is not in possession, the question of dispossessing her does not arise. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to grant liberty to the petitioner to file a Second Appeal as against the Judgment and Decree dated 15.02.2010 passed in A.S.No.59/2003. It is always open to the petitioner to question the Judgment and Decree dated 15.02.2010 passed in AS No.59/2003, in accordance with law- 11. For the foregoing reasons, the Writ Petition is 12. dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any. shall stand closed. *« Sd/-G.HELA NAIDU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. one CC to Sri. Ramesh Babu Pedapalli Advocate [OPUC] 2. Two CCS to GP for Revenue, High court OfAndhra Pradesh. [OUT] 3. Three CD Copies GSC HIGH COURT DATED: 10/04/2025 ORDER WP.No. 11879 of 2020 DISMISSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS