1 APHC010037682025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] FRIDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 2382/2025 Between: Yaricharla Komala Srinivasa Rao ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. NIMMAGADDA REVATHI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking Mandamus, for the following relief: “…issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents 2 to 5 in insisting the petitioner to vacate from a certain portion of his house site property admeasuring an extent of Ac.0.03 cents covered by Town Survey No.300, Ward No.1, Block No.6 of Ongole Municipal Corporation, as illegal, irregular, irrational, violative of provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 and rules framed thereunder and offends Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere in any manner with petitioner’s said house site property…” 2. Today when the matter came up for hearing, learned Standing Counsel for Municipal Corporation has furnished a copy of instructions, wherein it is stated that to know the genuineness of the house site patta granted to the petitioner, the 2nd respondent has addressed a letter to the Tahsildar, Ongole vide Roc.No.7288/G1/2024, dt.30.12.2024. In pursuance of which, the Tahsildar has addressed a letter dated 30.12.2024 informing that the Government has granted house site patta to the petitioner to an extent of Acs.0.03 cents in Sy.No.300, Ward No.1, Block No.6, through DK No.51/1403, dt.08.06.1994 as per the records available in his office. It is further stated that 3 the official respondents have not initiated action including issuance of notice against the writ petitioner. 3. In view of the admitted fact that the petitioner has been in possession of the said property by way of a DKT patta issued in his favour on 08.06.1994, this Court feels it appropriate to disposed of writ petition by directing the respondents not to interfere with the petitioner’s possession, without following due process of law. 4. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Consequently miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in the Writ Petition, shall also stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date : 07.02.2025 JLV