APHC010038762020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 2249/2020 Between: Etamsetti Satyanarayana The State of Andhra Pradesh and Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M.Siva Kumar Counsel for the Respondents: 1. GP for Revenue (AP) The Court made the following The writ petition is filed challenging the action of the respondents in attempting to dispossess, high handedly, an extent of Ac.0.55 cents land situated in Sy.No.100 Golugonda Mandal, Visakhapatnam Di 2. Heard Sri M.Siva Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends been in occupation and possession of the subject property. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 2249/2020 ...Petitioner AND The State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following order: is filed challenging the action of the respondents in high handedly, the petitioner from his land an extent of Ac.0.55 cents land situated in Sy.No.100-1 of Pakalapadu Village, Golugonda Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, without issuing any notice Heard Sri M.Siva Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents. sel for the petitioner contends that his ancestors have been in occupation and possession of the subject property. The petitioner and IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3458] THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA ...Petitioner ...Respondents is filed challenging the action of the respondents in from his land, which is 1 of Pakalapadu Village, strict, without issuing any notice. Heard Sri M.Siva Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents. ancestors have The petitioner and 2 KM,J W.P.No.2249 of 2020 his family members have also executed a registered mortgage deed in favor of one Mathayamma, vide Document No.1660/1973, dated 31.07.1973. 4. When the respondents attempted to enter the subject land, claiming it to be the Government property, the petitioner approached this Court by way of the present Writ Petition. 5. The 4th respondent filed counter affidavit stating that the petitioner's father was the absolute owner of the land in Sy.No.100/1, of an extent of Ac.1.09 cents. The land was acquired by the Tahsildar, Narsipatnam, to provide house site pattas to scheduled castes, following due procedure under the Land Acquisition Act, in the year 1981, and an award in No.3/80, dated 19.01.1981, was passed. 6. It is stated that the petitioner's father claimed the compensation but refused to sign the statement. Consequently, the Tahsildar deposited the amount in the Civil Court, in terms of the provisions of Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. It is further stated that after the acquisition, the land was distributed to the allottees as house site pattas, but the allottees of the land did not construct houses. It is contended by the Tahsildar that the petitioner is occupying the subject property unauthorisedly and has constructed a solar shed on the land. When the same was pointed out to him, the petitioner has agreed to remove the same, however filed the present writ petition. 3 KM,J W.P.No.2249 of 2020 7. Reply affidavit to the counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the petitioner, denying the acquisition proceedings and stating that the petitioner was never served with notice of the acquisition proceedings. Further, the fact of deposit of the amount in the Civil Court was denied. The petitioner has claimed to have continuously occupied the land for 50 years without any interruption from the authorities. Thus, prayed for allowing the Writ Petition. 8. Considered the rival submissions. 9. The petitioner in support of his contention that he has been in occupation of the subject land for a long time, relies on the copies of Adangal(s). A perusal of the said document reflects that the relevant columns relating to possession and enjoyment contains the name of the petitioner. 10. The petitioner contends that he is in possession of the subject land and, therefore, claims that he cannot be dispossessed without following due procedure under the law. 11. This Court is of the considered view that the respondents cannot dispossess the petitioner without following due process under the law. Since it is an admitted fact, even by the respondents, that the petitioner is in possession of the subject land, the respondents must serve a notice before evicting the petitioner. 4 KM,J W.P.No.2249 of 2020 12. Considering the fact that the petitioner has been in uninterrupted possession of the property, the respondents must follow due procedure under the law, by issuing notice to the petitioner before passing any order. Till passing of such an order, the petitioner shall not be dispossessed of the subject land. 13. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed. _______________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA Date: 07.01.2025 BSK 5 KM,J W.P.No.2249 of 2020 79 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 2249/2020 Date: 07.01.2025 BSK