APHC010146812020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3233] THURSDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN WRIT PETITION NO: 8955/2020 Between: 1. CHAPPIDI LAKSHMI NARASIMHAM, FATHER NAME. LATE. CHINNA KONDAIAH, AGE. 51, R/O. 2-69, MEKAPADU (Z), GODIPADU POST, PONNALURU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 2. VUNNAM BASAVAIAH, S/O LATE PEDDA SUBBAIAH, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O 5-69, MEKAPADU (Z), GODIPADU POST, PONNALURU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPLE SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KANDUKURU REVENUE DIVISION, KANDUKURU TOWN, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, PONNALURU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 5. THE MANDAL PARISHAD DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, PONNALURU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 6. THE MEKAPADU Z GRAM PANCHAYAT, REP. BY ITS PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, MEKAPADU (Z) VILLAGE,PONNALURU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. G ESWARAIAH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. V VINOD K REDDY (SC FOR ZP MPDO GP) The Court made the following: 3 Order: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents. 2. This writ petition was filed questioning the action of the respondents in not protecting the Grazing Poramboke land in an extent of Ac.4.16 cents in Sy.No.204-1 situated at Mekapadu (Z) Village, Ponnaluru Mandal, Prakasam District and contemplating to assign the same as house sites under the flagship program of Navaratnalu - Pedalandariki Illu without protecting the same for Grazing purpose. 3. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader, relying upon the written instructions of the 4th respondent dated 18.09.2025, submits that this land was not used for the above said public purpose. However, it does not preclude for the respondents to deal with the subject property strictly in accordance with law, if so warranted for any public purpose. 4. The copy of instructions of the 4th respondent shall be made as part of the Court record. 5. In view of the same, no further orders are necessary in this writ petition. 6. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of. Interim orders, if any, stands vacated. There shall be no order as to costs. 4 As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________ JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN 18.09.2025 PNS