APHC010157982020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] FRIDAY,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 9799/2020 Between: 1. DR M SAILAJA CHANDRA, W/O.M.HANUMATHA RAO, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.6-235, POTTI SRIRAMULU VEEDHI, CHILAKALURIPET, GUNZTUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, GUNTUR DISTRICT, GUNTUR. 3. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICER, GUNTUR DISTRICT, GUNTUR. 4. GRAM PANCHAYAT, THIMMAPURAM, GUNTUR DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS PANCHAYAT SECRETARY 5. THE TAHSILDAR, EDLAPADU MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT, A.P. ...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 topleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Prohibition, against the 4th respondent, prohibiting the said authority from going ahead with the proceedings undertaken vide 2 issuance of Notice, dt.21.05.2020 (received on 29.05.2020), initiated in respect of petitioner's property in Sy.No.35/2, an extent of Ac.1.59 cts, situated at Thimmapuram Village, Edlapadu Mandal, Guntur District and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2020 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 stay all and further proceedings of the 4th respondent, pursuant to the Notice dated 21.05.2020 (received on 29.05.2020) in relation to the petitioner’s land in Sy.No.35/2, an extent of Ac.1.59 cts, situated at Thimmapuram Village, Edlapadu Mandal, Guntur District, pending disposal of the writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P ROY REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 2. Mattegunta.Sudhir,Standing Counsel For Z.P.Ps,M.P.Ps,Gram Panchayats The Court made the following: 3 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION.NO.9799 OF 2020 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India seeking the following reliefs:- “to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Prohibition against the 4th respondent prohibiting the said authority from going ahead with the proceedings undertaken vide issuance of Notice dt.21.05.2020 (received on 29.05.2020) initiated in respect of petitioner’s property in Sy.No.35/2, an extent of Ac.1.59 cts situated at Thimmapuram Village, Edlapadu Mandal, Guntur District and pass such other order or orders...” 2. Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development and learned Standing counsel for Gram Panchayat for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner herein is the absolute owner and possessor of the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.1.59 cents in Sy.No.35/2 of Thimmapuram Village, Edlapadu Mandal, Guntur District, having acquired the same through a registered sale deed dated 12.06.2000. Since then, the petitioner has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property without any interference. Later, the revenue authorities issued pattadar pass book and title deed in favour of the petitioner. While so, the respondents straightaway issued a final notice dated 21.05.2020, directing the petitioner herein to handover the subject land to the Gram Panchayat, Thimmapuram for distribution of the same to the house less poor persons under the scheme of Navaratnalu-Pedalandariki Illu on the ground that the subject land 4 is classified as Gramakantam land, without issuing any prior notice and without following due process of law as contemplated under the Right To Fair Compensation And Transparency In Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation And Resettlement Act, 2013 (in short ‘the Act 30 of 2013’). 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that at the time of admission, on hearing both the learned counsel, this Court was pleased to pass an interim order dated 09.06.2020 directing the respondents to maintain status quo pursuant to the final notice dated 21.05.2020. Pursuant to the said interim orders, so far, the respondents not interfered with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property of the petitioner. 5. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.4 furnished written instructions dated 13.09.2025, wherein, the relevant portion of the said instructions is extracted hereunder: “It is submitted that the petitioner herein purchased the property from Pallapu Sambaiah by way of registered sale deed dated 21.01.2000 in the sub-registrar, Chilakaluripet. It is submitted that in the year 2020, notice was issued by this Gram Panchayat for seeking the above land for distribution of House sites under the program of (Pedalandariki Ellu) under Navaratnalu. Later, the Government withdrew the distribution of houses in the above S.No.35/2 and allotted houses in the alternative land. It is submitted that the name of the petitioner is show in the Adangal and 1B accounts.” 6. He further submits that in view of the interim orders of this Court and in view of the evidence filed by the petitioner showing that he is the pattadar and 5 possessor of the subject land as per the Adangal and 1B register, the respondents have not taken any steps to take over the possession and to distribute the same to the others under the subject scheme. 7. Considering the submissions made by the both the learned counsel and in view of the clear and categorical instructions submitted by the respondent No.4, it is evident that the respondents are not proceeding further for distribution of the subject land to the house less poor persons and are not interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject land of the petitioner. Moreover, if at all the respondents intend to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property of the petitioner, they would follow due process of law. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property of the petitioner, without following due process of law. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J Date:19.09.2025 BSP 6 538 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION.NO.9799 OF 2020 DATED:19.09.2025 BSP