APHC010048562021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: Between: Gangi Pedda Subbareddy, The State of Andhra Pradesh and others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SWAPNA PRIYA CHAKKILAM Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following The short grievance of the petitioner is that without without following the due process of law him to vacate from the property to an extent of Ac.4.99 cents of dry land covered by survey No.169 of Venkatadripalem revenue village, Gangivaripalli village Panchayat, Yerragondapalem Mandal, Prakasam District in order to distribute the same under the state Government scheme ‘Navaratnalu Pedalandariki illu’. 2. Heard Sri Subbarao Korrapati, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Krishna Praneeth, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the official respondents. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 3077/2021 ...PETITIONER AND The State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: SWAPNA PRIYA CHAKKILAM Counsel for the Respondent(S): The Court made the following order: The short grievance of the petitioner is that without issuing due process of law, respondent authorities are insisting him to vacate from the property to an extent of Ac.4.99 cents of dry land covered by survey No.169 of Venkatadripalem revenue village, Gangivaripalli village Panchayat, Yerragondapalem Mandal, Prakasam District in order to ute the same under the state Government scheme ‘Navaratnalu Heard Sri Subbarao Korrapati, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Krishna Praneeth, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the official IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3332] THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JANUARY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT(S) issuing notice and authorities are insisting him to vacate from the property to an extent of Ac.4.99 cents of dry land covered by survey No.169 of Venkatadripalem revenue village, Gangivaripalli village Panchayat, Yerragondapalem Mandal, Prakasam District in order to ute the same under the state Government scheme ‘Navaratnalu- Heard Sri Subbarao Korrapati, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Krishna Praneeth, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the official 2 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit contended that the petitioner is the owner and possessor of the subject land. He was issued e-pass book and his name was notified as pattadar and enjoyer in all revenue records and the nature of property is notified as patta land. He further submitted that recently respondent No.4, with the influence of respondent No.5, notified the name of respondent No.5 as pattadar and enjoyer of the subject property. When the petitioner questioned about the same, respondent No.4 admitted that it is a mistake and it will be rectified soon, but so far, no exercise has been made in that respect. He further submitted that respondent No.4 along with his subordinates came to the subject property on 04.02.2021 and began to conduct survey. When the petitioner questioned about the same, respondent No.4 replied that the revenue authorities intend to distribute the subject land under the scheme ‘Navaratnalu-Pedalandariki illu’. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition is filed and this Court granted interim order directing the respondents not to interfere with the petitioner’s possession and enjoyment over the subject property. Hence, prayed to pass orders treating the interim order as final order. 4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader while reiterating the contents of the counter contended that the respondent authorities have not selected the petitioner’s land for the scheme ‘Navaratnalu-Pedalandariki illu’ hence, the question of dispossession of the 3 petitioner from the subject property does not arise. As such, there is nothing remains for adjudication, hence, prayed to close the Writ Petition. 5. To the said submission, learned counsel for the petitioner requested to record the contents of counter and prayed to close the Writ Petition. 6. Perusal of the record shows that this Court vide order dated 09.02.2021 granted interim order directing the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the subject property pending disposal of the main Writ Petition. In the counter, the respondent authorities have categorically stated that they have not selected the subject land for the purpose of government scheme ‘Navaratnalu- Pedalandariki illu’. 7. Taking the submissions of both the learned counsel and the counter filed by the respondents into consideration, as the authorities have no intention to allot the petitioner’s land under the scheme ‘Navaratnalu- Pedalandariki illu‘, there remains nothing for adjudication and the Writ Petition is liable to be closed. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications pending, if any in the Writ Petition, shall also stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 29.01.2025 MP 4 219 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 3077 of 2021 29.01.2025 MP