APHC010639192025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3208] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 32981/2025 Between: 1. INDIRA MAHILA MANDALI,, (SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, 1860, BEARING REGD. NO. 210/1980), PLOT NO. 212, 1ST FLOOR, ROAD NO. IOC, MLA'S AND MP'S COLONY, JUBILEE HILLS, HYDERABAD -34, REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT SMT. Y.S. BHARATHI REDDY W/O. LATE. Y.S. GEORGE REDDY. ...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, KADAPA, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. 3. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF LAND ADMINISTRATION, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KADAPA REVENUE DIVISION, Y.S.R. KADAPA DISTRICT. 5. THE TAHSILDAR, KADAPA, Y.S.R. KADAPA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the orders in 2 R.Dis(E1)/4019/2006, dated 05.11.2025 passed by the respondent No.2 ordering the resumption of the land in an extent of Ac.1.83 cents in Sy.No.163/2 and Ac.1.17 cents in Sy.No.163/7 of Putlampalli Village to the Government for the alleged ground of non utilization of the same, even though it is evident the same is put for utilization as per the report submitted by the respondent No.4 that too without adhering due process of law as arbitrary, illegal, colorable exercise of power and contrary to the well established legal principles, apart from being violative of the fundamental and the Constitutional rights guaranteed to the petitioner under Article 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 grant stay of all further proceedings in pursuance of the orders in R.Dis.(E1)/4019/2006, dated 05.11.2025 passed by the respondent No.2, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V R REDDY KOVVURI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: 3 ORDER: The present Writ Petition is filed, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief: “to issue any writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or an appropriate writ or order declaring the orders in R.Dis(E1)/4019/2006, dated 05.11.2025 passed by the respondent No.2 ordering the resumption of the land in an extent of Ac.1.83 cents in Sy.No.163/2 and Ac.1.17 cents in Sy.No.163/7 of Putlampalli Village to the Government for the alleged ground of non utilization of the same, even though it is evident the same is put for utilization as per the report submitted by the respondent No.4 that too without adhering due process of law as arbitrary, illegal, colorable exercise of power and contrary to the well established legal principles, apart from being violative of the fundamental and the Constitutional rights guaranteed to the petitioner under Article 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same and pass...” 2. Heard M/s V.R.Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondents. 3. The Writ Petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated 05.11.2025 wherein respondent no.2 has cancelled the alienation of land admeasuring Ac.1.83cents in Sy.No.163/2 and Ac.1.17cents in total three acres in Sy.No.163/7 of Putlampalli Village to the Government which was made in favour of the petitioner i.e. the President, Indira Mahila Mandali. 4. Though there are several factual disputes, but learned counsel for the petitioner has mainly relied on the orders passed by this Court in the earlier Writ Petition No.31697 of 2013 which was considered and disposed of by this Court on 27.3.2023 with the following order: 4 “Therefore, as there is a patent failure of the rules of natural justice, the writ petition is partially allowed with the following directions: (a) The impugned order of cancellation dated 02.10.2013 issued by the 2nd respondent-District Collector is set aside and he is directed to issue a show-cause notice to the petitioner inviting a reply to the same and there after decide the matter on merits. (b) It is made clear that if the petitioner wishes to appear in person or through an advocate, file documents etc., they should be given an opportunity to do so. Same is the case with the respondents. (c) However, the entire exercise should be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Needless to say a speaking order must be passed.” 5. Though the said order was passed in the year 2023, even after lapse of more than two years, the respondents neither initiated any action nor issued any notice as per the above said directions. Surprisingly, now the respondents have passed the impugned orders cancelling alienation which was made in favour of the petitioner mainly on the ground that the respondents have sent a registered post vide RN605445541IN and the same is returned saying that no such person is available in the said address and subsequently the Tahsildar has served the said notice to the Manager of the petitioner on 27.5.2025. But the petitioner failed to submit any explanation. On that ground, the respondents have passed the present impugned orders. 6. Perused the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.31697 of 2013 on 27.3.2023. The very ground taken by the respondents is that the petitioner has not submitted any explanation pursuant to the notice dated 27.5.2025. 5 7. Learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents-State has submitted that subsequent to the orders passed by this court, the respondent authorities have conducted panchanama and possession has been taken. 8. As the said taking of possession is only a paper possession, that cannot be permitted in these type of cases. 9. In the said circumstances, this Court is setting aside the impugned order only to provide an opportunity to the petitioner to substantiate its submissions before the concerned authority. Hence, the impugned order dated 05.11.2025 passed by respondent no.2 is set aside, remanding the matter to respondent no.2 to pass orders after giving a proper opportunity to the petitioner, if required, by providing an opportunity of hearing, within two (02) weeks from this day, and pass appropriate orders within a period of four (04) weeks thereafter. 10. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications pending, if any, in the writ petition, shall also stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH 25.11.2025 RD 6 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH WRIT PETITION No.32981 of 2025 25.11.2025 RD