1 APHC010065842019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3209] WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA WRIT PETITION NO: 2946 OF 2019 Between: 1. K V SUBRAHMANYAM, S/O K. ARJUNUDU, AGED 50 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O HOUSE NO. 1-104, GUDIVADA VILLAGE, PEDDAPURAM MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT AT KAKINADA. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PEDDAPURAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, PEDDAPURAM MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K B RAMANNA DORA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE (AP) 2 The Court made the following ORDER: Alleging highhanded action of the respondents in trying to evict the petitioner from the land an extent of Ac.2-00 cents in Sy.No.73 of Gudivada Village, Peddapuram Mandal, East Godavari District, the present Writ Petition is filed. 2) Heard Mr.K.B. Ramanna Dora, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr.K.Arjun Chowdary, learned Assistant Government Pleader, representing the respondents. Perused the material on record. 3) Mr.K.B.Ramanna Dora, learned counsel for the petitioner, referring to the averments in the writ affidavit submits that the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the above extent of land, which was acquired by way of succession and that the petitioner raised a coconut garden in the said land. He submits that some of the family members of the petitioners have also constructed houses in the said land and in fact the land in Sy.No.73 is recorded as Grama Kantam in the revenue records. He submits that as the respondent authorities are trying to assign the said land to the third parties, though the grama kantam lands cannot be assigned, that too by highhandedly dispossessing the petitioner, the present Writ Petition is filed. He submits that such an action on the part of the respondents 3 without following due process of law is unsustainable. He submits that considering the said aspects while ordering notice before admission, a learned Judge of this Court by an order dated 18.03.2019 directed the respondents not to disposes the writ petitioner from the subject land, without following due process of law. He submits that the said interim orders are in force and appropriate orders in the facts and circumstances of the case may be passed by declaring that the action of the respondents is not sustainable in law. 4) On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader made submissions on the basis of instructions dated 04.11.2025 furnished by the 4th respondent. He submits that the land an extent of Ac.0-25 cents, which was encroached by the petitioner was assigned to third parties and 17 pattas were issued by evicting the petitioner. He submits that, therefore, the petitioner is not in possession and enjoyment of the subject land and therefore, the contention that respondents are interfering with the possession of the petitioner in respect of subject land is not correct. He accordingly urges for dismissal of the Writ Petition. 5) This Court has considered the submissions made. At the outset, it may be pertinent to note that it is the specific case of the petitioner that the subject matter land is situated in Sy.No.73 and the same is recorded as Grama Kantam. It is also his case that the 4 coconut garden was raised in the land in question and the petitioner is in possession of the same. Admittedly, an interim order was granted on 18.03.2019, around six years ago, but no counter affidavit is filed so far. 6) Though the learned Assistant Government sought to impress upon the Court that the petitioner is not in possession of the subject matter land, on the basis of the instructions referred to above, this Court is not in a position to appreciate the same, as the said instructions are vague and lacking in material particulars. This Court has come across number of cases, wherein the officers concerned are furnishing the written instructions / para-wise remarks in a routine manner without the relevant information, despite circular instructions issued by the Department. The case on hand is not an exemption. 7) In the written instructions referred to above, it is mentioned that in the year 2019, 17 pattas were issued in an extent of Ac.0-25 cents, which was encroached by the petitioner. No details are furnished as to the date on which the petitioner was evicted from the said extent. No details as to issuance of any notices with specific dates were mentioned. Further, nothing is stated as to the date on which the pattas were issued to third parties, and the date of handing over of possession to them. However, it is stated that the said pattadars have not occupied the house sites and at present, the 5 position of land is vacant. If really, the land was assigned prior to the date of interim orders dated 18.03.2019, by this time the respondents or the third parties, in whose favour the lands are assigned, would have moved appropriate applications for getting the interim orders vacated. Therefore, the submissions on the basis of instructions merits no consideration and the same are accordingly rejected. 8) This Court, in the light of the interim order referred to above, deems it not necessary to delve further in the matter and inclined to dispose of the Writ Petition, providing that the respondents shall not resort to any action in respect of the subject matter property, except by following due process of law. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. 9) Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________ NINALA JAYASURYA, J Date: 05.11.2025 Ssv 6 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA WRIT PETITION No.2946 of 2019 Date: 05.11.2025 Ssv