1 APHC010588742025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3208] THURSDAY,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 30413/2025 Between: 1. C LAKSHMI, W/O C.N. RAO R/O D.NO 7/222, C3 NESTLES COLONY APARTMENTS, EAST POINT COLONY, VISAKHAPATNAM ANDHRA PRADESH 530017 (CURRENTLY RESIDING AT 42 LAFAYETTE DRIVE, LIVINGSTON, NEW JERSEY 07039, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA REP. BY HER GPA HOLDER DR. KADIYALA NAGESWARARAO) ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VELAGAPUDI AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, VISAKHAPATNAM. 3. THE JOINT COLLECTOR, VISAKHAPATNAM. 4. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR, STEEL PLANT LAND ACQUISITION OFFICE VISAKHAPATNAM. 5. THE TAHSILDAR, PEDAGANTYADA MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM 2 ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. PATANJALI PAMIDIGHANTAM Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH WRIT PETITION No.30413 of 2025 ORDER: This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking the following relief: “…..to issue a Writ more particularly in the nature of Mandamus against action of the 5th respondent herein in issuing the proceedings vide Rc. No.96/2025/SA, dated 30.10.2025 issued U/s 6 of the Andhra Pradesh (A.P.) Land Encroachment Act, 1905 while the suit for declaration is pending in O.S No.22 of 2024 on the file of the Hon'ble XIII Additional District Judge at Gajuwaka as illegal, arbitrary and in violative of Article 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and contrary to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Government of A.P Vs. Tummala Krishna Rao' and to consequently set aside the proceedings vide Rc. No.96/2025/SA, dated 30.10.2025 issued U/s 6 of the Andhra Pradesh (A.P.) Land Encroachment Act, 1905….” 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents. 3. Considering the submissions of learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and also on perusal of the material filed along with the writ petition, this Court has passed the interim 4 orders on 03.11.2025. Today, when the matter is taken up for further hearing, learned Senior Counsel mainly made his submissions that very initiation of the proceedings under the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟) is contrary to Section 2 read with 3(d) of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (for short, „the Estate Abolition Act‟). Learned Senior Counsel has mainly relied on Section 2(c) of the Estate Abolition Act where the rights of ryotwari tenure were protected. The petitioner would come under the said category. Hence, initiation of proceedings under the Act is barred. Further, just because of the orders passed in the writ appeal and same were confirmed in the special leave petition, the petitioner‟s rights to approach the Civil Court would not be taken out. As to the issue with regard to the possession and title, already the petitioner has approached the Civil Court. Hence, till the disposal of the civil suit or at least disposal of the interlocutory application, he made a request for protection of the petitioner‟s rights. 4. Reply to the said contentions, learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents has taken this Court to 5 the observations made in the orders passed in W.A.No.943 of 2023 and batch wherein the Division Bench has consideration with regard to the possession of the appellant i.e., the petitioner herein in paragraph Nos.11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18 which read as follows: “11. However, the question of possession remains. The settled law is that, a person who is in possession, whether by legitimate means or illegitimate means, is entitled to the protection of law, to the extent of ensuring that the State does not use high handed methods to evict the occupants of land. The State is required to follow the procedure established under law in as much as such procedure has been to be in place to safeguard the rights of citizens and other persons from the highhanded actions of the State. 12. In the present case, the question of protection of possession would arise if the appellant is able to demonstrate, that she is in possession of the land. 13. The appellant seeks to demonstrate possession by relying upon the report of the Tahsildar dated 20.05.1982 and the order of the erstwhile High Court of A.P dated 18.11.1997 in W.P.No.29603 of 1997. 14. A report of the Tahsildar in 1982 is said to have been issued on the basis of an application made by Sri V. Rajan Raju on 30.06.1982 to the Revenue Divisional Officer and upon the direction of the Revenue Divisional 6 Officer, by his letter dated 18.07.1980, to conduct an enquiry. The Tahsildar, in his report dated 20.05.1982, said to have been prepared in pursuance of the direction of the Revenue Divisional Officer, states that Sy.No.64/1 of Pedagantyada Village has a total extent of Ac.69.30 cents had been classified as Banjar land. The land claimed by Sri V. Rajan Raju was identified to fall in Sy.No.64/29 and Sy.No.64/30. The physical features of the said land showed that there were some cashew plants, aged about 2 to 3 months and a pucca wall constructed some time before the inspection on the western side of the land. The report further stated that enquiries had revealed that no assessment was paid by Sri V. Rajan Raju from 1970 and his claim that he had paid Rs.15/- towards B-memo charges was not supported by any evidence. In fact the record revealed that there was no such payment. The Tahsildar further reported that the land in question had been assigned to some other people but possession of the land was not given to these assignees even though changes have been incorporated in the village accounts. The Tahsildar concluded that Sri V. Rajan Raju was in occupation of the land since there was a retaining wall and the cashew plantation is said to have been raised by Sri V. Rajan Raju and that the possession of this land was confirmed by other adjoining ryots. A Xerox copy of the said report was placed before this copy along with neat typed copy. The Xerox copy is not certified by any authority. In fact the proceeding numbers etc., shown in the Xerox copy are not corroborated by any other document. The Xerox copy 7 does not contain the signature of the Tahsildar, who is said to have given this report. In fact the document placed before this Court is the Xerox copy of a true copy of the report. In such circumstances, the lack of signatures or any endorsement certifying the copy raises any amount of doubt over the genuineness of this document. As such, it would be unsafe for this Court to rely upon such a document. 15. The direction of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.P.No.29603 of 1997 was at the stage of admission and obviously without any instructions being given to the Government Pleader for Revenue. The order merely records the contentions of the petitioners therein, that they are in possession of the land and disposes of the writ petition stating that the petitioner shall not be evicted until procedure established by law is followed. The stand of the official respondents has been that Sri V. Rajan Raju was not in possession of the land and infact the land had already been alienated to the Visakhapatnam Steel Plant for using the said land for rehabilitating the displaced persons. Further, the land is said to have been inspected by the Special Deputy Tahsildar to Land Acquisition, Steel Plant before the land was transferred to the steel plant. A report dated 12.04.1980 was sent by the Special Deputy Tahsildar to the Special Officer, Land acquisition, on the basis of this inspection. This report does not show any encroachment or occupation by Sri V. Rajan Raju. It is also stated that same D-form pattas had been given in relation to Ac.19.50 cents of land in Sy.No.64/20 to 64/34 8 and the remaining extent Ac.19.04 cents in Sy.No.64/1D and 35 are covered by some encroachments. The land in question is said to be in Sy.No.64/29 and Sy.No.64/30. This report certifies that there were no encroachments in 64/29 and 64/30, as on 1980. 16. After receipt of the said report dated 12.04.1980, the District Collector, Visakhapatnam transferred the land and placed it at the disposal of the Special Deputy Collector, Rehabilitation for using it to rehabilitate displaced families. There was a further report of the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition dated 28.10.1983. In this report, it was stated that about Ac.10.00 cents of land allotted to D-Form pattadars in Sy.No.64 had been purchased in the year 1970 by Sri Appala Narasimha Raju and payment of compensation, to him, at half of the land value to an extent of Ac.5.00 cents was approved. This report also does not mention any encroachment in Sy.No.64/29 and Sy.No.64/30 nor is the name of Sri V. Rajan Raju mentioned anywhere. 17. The records also show that the Special Deputy Collector had handed over plots to about 10 of the displaced persons in May, 2021 under land handover receipts. 18. In the circumstances, the contention of the official respondents as well as the private respondents that the appellant was not in possession of this land would have to be accepted.” 9 5. As against the same, the petitioner has also approached the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.46059 of 2024. The said SLP has also dismissed. In the said circumstances, the fact remains that the petitioner is not in possession of the land. Hence, the question of granting interim direction protecting the possession would not arise. 6. Learned Government Pleader has contended that, as against the impugned notice, the petitioner has a statutory remedy under Section 10(i)(a) of the Act. Further, the learned Government Pleader has also made his submissions that by way of the impugned notice under Section 6 of the Act for removal of caution boards, CC TV Cameras and security rooms only otherwise the land is in possession of the respondents. 7. Considering the said submissions and on perusal of the observations made by the Division Bench, this Court is not inclined to go into the merits of the case. In fact, as submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that the issue is pending before the Civil Court, this Court is restrained to make any observations with regard to the possession as well as the title. 10 8. Considering the submissions made by the learned Government Pleader, the Writ Petition is disposed of by giving liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal under Section 10(i)(a) of the Act within the statutory period of sixty (60) days from the date of the impugned order. Along with the appeal the petitioner may also file an interim application. Till disposal of the interim application, the respondents are directed not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner in respect of the properties mentioned in the impugned notice dated 30.10.2025. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH Date: 13.11.2025 Ivd 11 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH WRIT PETITION No.30413 of 2025 Dated: 13.11.2025 Ivd