IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH::AMARAVA (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE , i PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA 202^^ WRIT PETITION NO: 11706 OF Between: B Rajendra, S/o Late B Lakshmaiah, aged about 59 years, Occ Agriculture, R/o D.No.9-19/A, Path^vidddipalli Village, Maddinayanapalli Panchayath, Pakala Mandal, Tirupati District. ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. The District Collector, Tirupati, Tirupati District. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupati Divsion, Tirupati District. 4. The Tahsildar, Pakala Mandal, Tirupati 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 may be pleased issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent Nos.2 to 4 in interfering into peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Petitioner's agriculture land in Sy.No.131/2C to an extent of Ac.0.16 cents situated at Maddinayanapalli Panchayath, Pakala Mandal, Tirupati District, and threat of dispossession the petitioner from his agricultureland, without issuing any notice to the petitioner, and without following the due process of law, violation of Provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and ', Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and violation of Principles of Natural Justice and also in violation of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct the respondent Nos.2 to 4 not to enter into peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Petitioner's agriculture land in Sy.No.131/2C to an extent of Ac.0.16 cents situated at D.No.9-19/A, Pathavaddipalli Village,Maddinayanapalli Panchayath, Pakala Mandal, Tirupati District, not following the orders of the Hon'ble apex court in Rame Gowda(dead) L.Rs.V. Mavadappa Naidu and Hon'ble Andra Pradesh High Court Orders in WP No.42199 of 2015 and not to dispossess the petitioner from his agriculture land, to issue notice to the petitioner, and to follow the due process of law, to follow the Provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement 2013 Act, lA NO: 1 OF 2Q2fi Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court pleased direct the respondent Nos.2 to 4 may be not to enter into peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Petitioner's agriculture land in Sy.No.131/2C to an extent of Ac.0.16 cents situated at Maddinayanapalli Panchayath, Pakala Mandal, Tirupati District, and not to dispossess the petitioner from his agriculture land, to issue notice to the petitioner, and to follow the due process of law, to follow the Provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 pending disposal of the above writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner; SRI PASAPALA SUDHAKAR Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 4: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: Order REDDY 1 NV,J W.P.No.11706 of 2025 APHC010234992025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] MONDAY ,THE FIFTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 11706/2025 Between: B Rajendra ...PETITIONER AND ...RESPONDENT(S) The State Of Ap and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.PASAPALA SUDHAKAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: 2 NV,J W.P.No.11706 of 2025 The Court made the following: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to Writ of Mandamus, claiming the following direction; 1. issue To issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent Nos.2 to 4 in interfering into peaceful possession and enjoyment of the P^ '^'^uers agriculture land in Sy.No.131/2C to an extent of Ac.0.16 Maddinayanapalli Panchayath. Pakala Mandat, Tmpati ^ threat of dispossession the petitioner from his agriculture land, without issuing any notice to the petitioner, and without following the ^ue process of law, violation of Provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and 2013 and violation of Principles of Natural Justice and also in ^lolujion of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently to ZtThe respondent Nos.2 to 4 not to enter into 3^“^^ and eniovment of the Petitioner's agriculture land in Sy.No.131/2C to an etfen?T AC 0 16 cents situated at D.No.9-19/A, Pathavaddipal Village, Maddinayanapalli Panchayath, Pakala not following the orders of the Hon'ble apex court in Rame Gowda(dead) LRsV Varadappa Naidu and Hon'ble Andra Pradesh High Court Orders in WP No.42199 of 2015 and not to dispossess the petitioner from his aariculture land, to issue notice to the petitioner, and to follow the due process of law,’ to follow the Provisions of Right to Fair Comperisation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013” 2. The case of the petitioner is that, petitioner claims to be owner, possessor extent of Ac.0-16 cents in and enjoyer of the agriculture land of an Maddinayanapalli Panchayat, Pakala Mandal, Tirupatl District. SY.No.131/2C The name of the petitioner was mutated in the revenue records and pattadar passbooks were also issued in his favour. The petitioner has been in peaceful subject land without any interruption submits that. Respondent Nos.2 to 4 are trying to possession and enjoyment of the whatsoever. The petitioner NVJ W.P.No.11706 of 2025 interfere into the peaceful land. Questioning the inaction of Respondent Nos. is filed. possession and enjoyment of the petitioner’s subject 2 to 4, the present writ petition 3. Learned Government Pleader for instructions furnished by the Tahsildar, wherein it is submitted that land in Sy.No. 131/2 with cents is classified maddinayanapalli Village. As extent Ac.0-16 cents stands in Sy.No.131/2B, with Keerthisekhar s/o Raghunandaiah vide Village of Pakala Mandal, Tirupati District. Revenue placed on record written Pakala Mandal dated 02.05.2025, a total extent of Ac.0.33 as Government Wet Patta per A Register of per webland adangal the land inSy.No.131/2A, in favour of B. Vasu vide Khata No.878 as and the land an extent of Ac.0-17 cents stands in favour of A. Khata No.232 of Maddinayanapalli Further it is to submit that the petitioner has encroached the land in Sy.No,131/1 to an extent of Ac.0-04 by the way of constructing RCC cents rooms and is adjacent to the subject land which is classified as Tank Poramboke cents. Further, Respondent Nos.2 to 4 did per A Register with a total extent of Ac.5-94 not interfere into the possession and in any manner. as enjoyment over the subject land in Sy.No.131/2 i 4. During hearing, learned counsel for merits of the case, requested this Court to i not to dispossess the petitioner from his land the petitioner, without touching the issue a direction to the respondents without following due process of law. 4 NV,J W.P.No.11706 of 2025 Government Pleader for Revenue submits that, the of law and requested to pass appropriate Learned Assistant 5. respondents would follow due process orders. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Revenue and perused the material available on record. 6. When the petitioner are in settled possession and enjoyment of the 7. property, he cannot be dispossessed, without following due process of law in Rame Gowda (dead) by L.Rs. v. view of the law declared by the Apex Court in M.Varadappa Naidu (Dead) by L.Rs. possession of the subject property, the respondents are dispossess the petitioner from the subject property, except by due process of Therefore, if the petitioner is in 1 ” directed not to law. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission with the consent of both the counsel. No costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand 8. 9. closed. Sd/- A. VIJAYA BABU GISTRAR ’’2004 (1) see assistant //true copy// SECTION OFFICER ,,°;^oUcoUec,or,T-.upa«,T.apaf,Dis.dc., To, ^/"The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupati Division, Tirupati District. ^4, The Tahsildar, Pakala Mandal, Tirupati District. 5. One CC to SRI PASAPALA SUDHAKAR REDDY Advocate [OPUC] ‘-"6. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] J. Three CD Copies gsg HIGH COURT DATED: 05/05/2025 ORDER WP.No.11706 of 2025 DISPOSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS