APHC010060912023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] TUESDAY,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 3038/2023 Between: 1. DASARI SATYANARAYANA, S/O. GANI RAJU, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, OCC. CULTIVATION, 2. DASARI ARUNA,, D/O. SATYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCC. CULTIVATION, 3. DASARI VENKATA GANESH,, S/O. SATYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE JOB, 4. DASARI NAGA SINDHU,, D/O. SATYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT, (ALL ARE RESIDENT OF DOOR NO.1-112, ANDUGULAPADU VILLAGE IN VINUKONDA MANDAL OF PALNADU DISTRICT) ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPLE SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE ANDUGULAPDU GRAM PANCHAYAT, REP. BY ITS PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, ANDUGULAPDU VILLAGE, VINUKONDA MANDAL, PALANADU DISTRICT. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, NARASARAOPET, PALANADU DISTRICT 4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, NARASARAOPET, PALANADU DISTRICT, 5. THE TAHSILDAR, VINUKONDA MANDAL, PALANADU 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 a writ of mandamus declaring that the action of the Respondents authorities herein in taking to evict/ dispossess the Petitioners from their Agricultural lands admeasuring to an extent of Ac. No. 0.79 cents in Sy No. 191-1-1, to an extent of Ac. 0.85 in Sy. No. 192-B of Andugulapadu Village, Vinukomda Mandal, Guntur (Palanadu) District for the purpose allotment of house sites to the weaker sections without following the procedure under law as wholly arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction and void and violated the principles of natural justice and affected my rights guaranted under Articles 14, 15, 19(1)(g), 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents not to interfere with petitioners possession and enjoyment of Agricultural lands admeasuring to an extent of Ac. No. 0.79 cents in Sy No. 191-1-1, to an extent of Ac. 0.85 in Sy. No. 192-B of Andugulapadu Village, Vinukomda Mandal, Guntur (Palanadu) District and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 direct the Respondents not to interfere with petitioners possession and enjoyment of Agricultural lands admeasuring to an extent of Ac. No. 0.79 cents in Sy No. 19 1 - 1 - 1 , to an extent of Ac. 0.85 in Sy. No. 192-B of Andugulapadu Village, Vinukomda Mandal, Guntur (Palanadu) District pending disposal of the main Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. MD SALEEM Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. VENKATA REDDY GAJJALA SC FOR ZPP, MPP, AND GRAM PANCHAYAT 2. GP FOR REVENUE 3. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV The Court made the following: ORDER: Questioning the action of the respondent authorities in evicting/dispossessing the petitioners from their respective Agricultural lands to an extent of Ac.0.79 cents in Sy.No.191-1-1 & Ac.0.85 cents in Sy.No.192- B of Andugulapadu Village, Vinukonda Mandal, Guntur (Palnadu) District, for the purpose of allotting house sites to the weaker sections without following the procedure contemplated under law, the present writ petition is filed. 2. Heard Sri Md.Saleem, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Mattegunta Sudheer, learned Standing Counsel for Gram Panchayat, Smt Naga Chandrika, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondents. 3. Learned Standing Counsel on written instructions dated 08.11.2025 submitted that the Gram Panchayat never issued a notice to the petitioner to evict them from their land and never interfered with their possession. The writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed, accordingly, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 4. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioners prayed to record the said submission and close the writ petition. 5. Taking their submissions into consideration, as the respondents are not interfering with the possession of the petitioners over the subject property, without going into the merits and demerits of the matter, this Court is inclined to close the writ petition. 6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date: 25th November, 2025 RKS