,, t IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 16088 OF 2020 Between: Ravuri Venkata Rao, S/o.Rama Nadham, aged about 69 years R/o.Muppala Village, Chandarlapadu Mandal, Krishna District. ...Petitioner AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Through its Principal Secretary Department of Revenue Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi Guntur District. The District Collector, Krishna District, Chilakalapudi, Machiiipatnam. The Sub-Collector, Krishna District, Vijayawada. The Tahsildar, Nandigama Mandal, Nandigama, Krishna District. The Station House Officer, Nandigama Police Station, Nandigama, Krishna District 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. ...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 in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents in trying to dispossess the petitioner from the land of an extent of Ac.0.22 cents or equal lent to 1065.392 sq.yards in RS.No.818/2C out of an extent of Ac.3.65 cents of Nandigama Village and Mandal, Krishna District without follow the due process of law as arbitrary, illegal, capricious and voilative of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner 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 respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the land of an extent of Ac.0.22 cents or equallent to 1065.392 sq.yards in RS.No.818/2C out of an extent of Ac.3.65 cents of Nandigama Village and Mandal, Krishna District. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI. SAI GANGADHAR CHAMARTY Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: APHC010244622020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) 0M0 [3505] I . FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 16088/2020 Between: Ravuri Venkata Rao ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: TSAI GANGADHAR CHAMARTY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following order; The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief: ....Issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in trying to dispossess the petitioner from the land of an extent of Ac. 0.22 cents or 1065.392 Sg. yards in R.S.N0.818/2C out of an extent of Ac. 3.65 cents of Nandigama Village and Mandal, Krishna District, without following the due process of law as arbitrary, illegal, capricious and violative of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner without following due process of law and pass....” Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant 2. Government Pleader for Revenue. 3. When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in this Writ Petition is squarely covered by order dated 25.03.2025 passed by this Court in W.P.No. 15337 of 2020 & batch and requested to pass a similar order in this Writ Petition also. The same is not disputed by learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. The operative portion of the said order, reads as follows; “....In view of the above submissions made by both parties, the writ petitions are disposed of directing the 4th respondent not to interfere with the possession of the petitioners in respect of RS. No. 818/2C. It is further made clear that, in case the petitioners encroach into vaagu poramboke lands in RS.No.818/3C, it is always open to the 4th respondent to initiate action in accordance with law. 4. In view of the above submissions made by both counsel, the present Writ Petition is also disposed of, in terms of the order, dated 25.03.2025 passed by this Court in W.P.No.15337 of 2020 & batch. There shall be no order as to costs. 5. Registry is directed to attach copy of the order, dated 25.03.2025 passed by this Court in W.P.No.15337 of 2020 & batch to this order. No order as to costs. S£-KJRAJA babu assistant registrar //TRUE COPY// Pr SECTION OFFICER To, " Pralsh"?" f Pradesh, Secrefanat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi Guntur District. • The District Collector, Krishna 3. The Sub-Collector, Krishna District, 4. The Tahsildar, Nandigama Mandal 5. The Station House Officer, , Krishna District(1 to 5 by RPAD) 6. One CC to SRI SAI GANGADHAR 7. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE 8. Three CD Copies District, Chilakalapudi, Machilipatnam. Vijayawada. Nandigama, Krishna District. Nandigama Police Station Nandigama CHAMARTY Advocate [OPUCJ > High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] KSR (Along with Copy of Order batch) dated 25.03.2025 in WP. No. 15337 of 2020 & KSR 09.06.2025 HIGH COURT TCDS, J g 3 0 JUl 2025 a ^ S?! Current Secuon .,y DATED:28/03/2025 ORDER WP.No.16088 of 2020 DISPOSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 1 APHC010232842020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NOS: 15337, 15365. 15403 and 15389 of 2020 WRIT PETITION NO: 15337/2020 Between: Puramsetti Ramarao [3505] ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: TSAI GANGADHAR CHAMARTY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR REVENUE WRIT PETITION NO: 15365/2020 ...RESPONDENT(S) Between: Namburi Suresh ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: ...RESPONDENT(S) 2 1.SAI GANGADHAR CHAMARTY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR HOME 2.GP FOR REVENUE WRIT PETITION NO: 15403/2020 Between: Ravuri Ravi ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: I.SAI GANGADHAR CHAMARTY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR REVENUE ...RESPONDENT(S) WRIT PETITION NO: 15389/2020 Between: Tummala Rambabu and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitloner(S): I.SAI GANGADHAR CHAMARTY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR HOME ...RESPONDENT(S) 3 2.GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following; COMMON ORDER Since the issue involved in all the writ petitions is similar in nature, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The petitioners in W.P.No.15337, 15365 & 15403 of 2020 claim that they are the absolute owners and possessors of land admeasuring an extent of Ac.0.7 cents each in Sy.No.818/2C of Nandigama Village and Mandal, Krishna District. In so far as the petitioner in W.P.No.15389 of 2020 is concerned, he claims that he is owner of land to an extent of Ac.0.10 cents in RS.No.818/2C. It is further case of the petitioners that, they have purchased their respective lands by virtue of registered sale deed dated 05.09.2014. It is their further case that, since the date of purchase of the subject lands, they have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. The petitioners also filed copies of Form-1 B and adangals to show that the subject properties are private patta lands and the names of their vendors are also reflected in revenue records. It is their further case that the 4*'^ respondent tired to interfere with their possession, without issuing any notice or following due process of law. Aggrieved by the said, they approached this Court by filing the mentioned writ petitions. 3. On the other hand, the 4^*" respondent filed counter affidavit admitting that the petitioners are the absolute owners of the subject lands. It is further averred in the counter affidavit that an extent of Ac.0.98 cents in RS.No.818/3C is abutting to the lands of the petitioners is in existence, which is classified above as vaagu poramboke. Taking advantage of the fact that vaagu poramboke land is situated abutting to the lands of the petitioners, they encroached into vaagu poramboke situated in RS.No.818/3C. On coming to know about the encroachment made by the petitioners they were orally instructed not to interfere with the said vaagu poramboke lands situated in RS.No.818/3C. The 4*'^ respondent denied the alleged interference with the petitioners land. 4. It IS not in dispute that the land in RS.No.818/2C is private patta land belonging to the petitioners. It is also not in dispute that land admeasuring an extent of Ac.0.98 cents in RS.No.818/30 is classified as vaagu poramboke. On a perusal of the counter affidavit, the 4‘^ respondent categorically averred that he is not interfering with the possession of the petitioners in respect of Rs.No.818/2C. Further, when the petitioners tried to encroach 6 into vaagu poramboke land in RS.No.818/3C, they were directed not to enter into the same inasmuch as the said land vests with the Government. 5. In view of the above submissions made by both parties, the writ petitions are disposed of directing the 4"^ respondent not to interfere with the possession of the petitioners in respect of RS.No.818/2C. It is further made dear that, in case the petitioners encroach into vaagu poramboke lands RS.No.818/3C, it is always open to the 4*^ respondent to initiate action in accordance with law. in 6. With the above directions, the writ petitions are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR Dt.25.03.2025 DSB