APHC010041072025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] THURSDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 2197/2025 Between: 1. MYLA SRINIVASULU, S/O M. PENCHALAIAH, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/O H.N0.4-17-3/4A, BEHIND ANJANEYASWAMY TEMPLE, SUNNIPENTA VILLAGE, SRISAILAM MANDAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, IRRIGATION AND CAD (WATER RESOURCES) DEPARTMENT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, N.S. REDDY SAGAR PROJECT, OPPOSITE YMCA, RAILWAY STATION ROAD, KURNOOL, ANDHRA PRADESH - 518001. 3. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, DAM MAINTENANCE CIRCLE, N.S.R.S.S PROJECT, SRISAILAM DAM EAST. 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, CAMPS AND BUILDINGS DIVISION, N.S.R.S.S. PROJECT, SRISAILAM. 5. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, SUNDIPENTA GRAM PANCHAYAT, SRISAILAM MANDAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT. 6. THE MANDAL REVENUE OFFICER, SRISAILAM MANDAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 VS,J W.P.No.2197 of 2025 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 or order or direction more particular in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of Respondents, more particularly the Respondent Nos.3 and 4 in interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the Petitioner over property admeasuring 100 Sq.Yards situated in House Site in No.9, Plot No.4-22-35/A in Sundipenta Village, Srisailam Mandal, Nandyal District (Previously Kurnool District) with the aid and help of Respondent Nos.5 and 6, as being illegal, arbitrary, without following principles of natural justice and in violation of Article 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, and Consequently direct the Respondents not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the Petitioner trust with respect to the property admeasuring 100 Sq.Yards situated in House Site in No.9, Plot No.4-22- 35/A in Sundipenta Village, Srisailam Mandal, Nandyal District (Previously Kurnool District) and pass such 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 be pleased to direct the Respondents not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the Petitioner with respect to the property admeasuring 100 Sq.Yards situated in House Site in No.9, Plot No.4-22-35/A in Sundipenta Village, Srisailam Mandal, Nandyal District (Previously Kurnool District) without following due process of law, pending disposal of the Writ Petition and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. AJAY KUMAR KANAPARTHI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. GP FOR IRRI AND CAD The Court made the following: 3 VS,J W.P.No.2197 of 2025 ORDER: The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “….to issue an appropriate writ or order or direction more particular in the nature of “Writ of Mandamus” declaring the action of Respondents, more particularly the Respondent Nos.3 and 4 in interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the Petitioner over property admeasuring 100 Sq.Yards situated in House Site in No.9, Plot No.4-22-35/A in Sundipenta Village, Srisailam Mandal, Nandyal District (Previously Kurnool District) with the aid and help of Respondent Nos.5 and 6, as being illegal, arbitrary, without following principles of natural justice and in violation of Article 14 and 300- A of the Constitution of India, and Consequently direct the Respondents not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the Petitioner trust with respect to the property admeasuring 100 Sq.Yards situated in House Site in No.9, Plot No.4-22-35/A in Sundipenta Village, Srisailam Mandal, Nandyal District (Previously Kurnool District) ….” 2. The petitioner is the absolute owner of plot admeasuring 100 Sq.yards, situated in House Site No.9, Plot No.4-22-35/A in Sundipenta Village, Srisailam Mandal, Nandyal District. The 6th respondent herein allotted the said land in favour of the petitioner vide proceedings No.RDis(B)63/2017 dated 19.02.2019. Since the date of issuance of the said patta, the petitioner has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property by erecting a GI shed and running a small pan shop in the subject property. 3. The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that, despite the above, respondents No.3 and 4, with the aid and assistance of respondents No.5 and 6, have illegally interfered with the petitioner’s peaceful possession of 4 VS,J W.P.No.2197 of 2025 the subject property without following due process of law. Challenging the said action, the present writ petition is filed. 4. When the matter came up for admission on 24.02.2025, this Court granted interim order, directing the respondents not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the subject property, without following due process of law. The said interim order was extended from time to time. 5. The learned Government Pleader for Revenue, representing respondent No.6, has furnished a copy of instruction, wherein it is stated that the house site patta in No.9, Plot No.4-22-35/A, vide R.Dis.(B) 63/2017 dated 19.02.2019, in Sundipenta Village, Srisailam Mandal, which is alleged to have been issued to the petitioner, is actually situated within the premises of the Dam Maintenance Division Petrol Bunk belonging to the Water Resource Department, Sundipenta Village, and the Department has objected to the grant of the house site patta. In spite of the same, the petitioner constructed a temporary shed in this site and is using it for commercial purpose without any valid permission from the Gram Panchayat. Upon enquiry and verification of office records, it is confirmed that no such house site patta was issued to the petitioner as claimed. Further, the petitioner’s wife, Smt. Myla Revathi, having a house site patta vide R.Dis.(B) 63/2017 dated 18.02.2019 in Sy.No.9, Plot No.4-17-3/4A in Sundipenta Village, where they reside along with their family, as supported by their Aadhar and Ration Card addresses. The petitioner is not residing in the GI shed as stated in the writ petition but is using Plot No.4-22-35/A for commercial purpose. It is further stated that both the petitioner and his wife have obtained house site 5 VS,J W.P.No.2197 of 2025 pattas, thereby misleading the Government with a mala fide intention to grab the land belonging to the Irrigation Department. Therefore, there are no merits in this writ petition and is liable to be dismissed. 6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleaders for Irrigation and Revenue. 7. As per the instructions submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, it can be understood that though the petitioner claims that two pattas have been issued pertaining to the same plot, the respondents have admitted that they issued a patta in favour of the petitioner’s wife vide R.Dis.(B) 63/2017 dated 18.02.2019 in Sy.No.9, Plot No.4-17-3/4A in Sundipenta Village, Srisailam Mandal, Nandyal District. It is further stated that the petitioner is not residing in the GI Shed as stated by him in the writ petition, and is using the site in No.9, Plot No.4-22-35/A in Sundipenta Village, Srisailam Mandal, Nandyal District for commercial purpose without having any patta in his favour. 8. In view of the said instructions, it can be noted that the petitioner has been in possession of the house site vide R.Dis.(B) 63/2017 dated 18.02.2019 in Sy.No.9, Plot No.4-17-3/4A, Sundipenta Village but is not residing in No.9, Plot No.4-22-35/A in Sundipenta Village; however, he is using the same for commercial purpose. Though the respondents claim that no house site has been issued to the petitioner for the scheduled property as claimed by him, since the petitioner has filed a Xerox copy of the same, it is for the respondents to initiate action in accordance with law. 6 VS,J W.P.No.2197 of 2025 9. In view of the same and in light of the interim order granted by this Court on 24.02.2025, this Court feels it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition by directing the respondents not to interfere with the petitioner’s peaceful possession of the subject property without following due process of law. 10. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date :14.08.2025. KGR