APHC010084712019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3209] TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA WRIT PETITION NO: 3694/2019 Between: 1. K YOGANAND, S/O CHENGAIAH, AGED 53 YEARS, CULTIVATION AND SERVICE, R/O 19-1-123,HARIVILLU RESIDENCY, RAM TULASI ROAD, TIRUPATHI, CHITTOOR DIST. 2. CHERLOPALLI SARALA, W/O ADINARAYANA, AGED 45 YEARS, CULTIVATION, R/O CHINTHARAJUPALLI H/O GANDLAPALLI, ONTIMITTA MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP BY ITS PRL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, YSR KADAPA, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, RAJAMPET, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, ONTIMITTA MANDAL, Y.S.R.KADAPA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. T V JAGGI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE (AP) NJS,J W.P No.3694 of 2019 2 The Court made the following Order: Heard Mr. K Narsi Reddy, learned counsel representing the learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. K Arjun Chowdary, learned Assistant Government Pleader and Mr. Balaji Medamalli, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.5 and 6. 2. The present writ petition is filed by the petitioners who claim that an extent of Ac.5.00 cents in Survey No.336/2A and Ac.5.00 cents in Survey No.336/2E was assigned in favor of the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 respectively by the respondent No.4 on 28.06.1988. 3. The learned counsel or the petitioners submits that since the date of assignments, the petitioners are in continuous possession and enjoyment of the said lands, their names were mutated in the revenue records and that they have also obtained loan from banks by mortgaging the lands. 4. While so, he submits that the respondent No.4 by acting in a highhanded manner attempted to dispossess the petitioners from the subject matter lands without issuing any notice. He submits that under the said circumstances, the present writ petition was filed and vide detailed order dated 19.03.2019, a direction was issued to the respondent No.4 not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners over the subject matter lands, without following due process of law. 5. Drawing the attention of this Court to the material on record, the learned counsel urges for passing of appropriate orders by protecting the interest of the petitioners. 6. On the other hand, Mr. K Arjun Chowdary, learned Assistant Government, argued the matter with reference to the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent No.4. NJS,J W.P No.3694 of 2019 3 7. Mr. Balaji Medamalli, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.5 and 6 inter alia contended that the land in Survey No.336 admeasuring an extent of Ac.19.20 cents is recorded as Government land and classified as hill and that it is adjacent to the Chintamrajupalli Village and for decades together, the same is used for communal purposes of the village to feed the cattle, goats and the villagers are also using the same for the purpose of storage of hay for cattle. He submits that there is no sub-division of the said Survey No.336 and therefore, the petitioners’ claim that they were assigned pattas in Survey Nos.336/2A and 336/2E is baseless and untenable. Be that as it may. 8. Drawing the attention of this Court to the averments made in the counter-affidavit of the respondent No.4, more particularly paragraph-17, the learned counsel would submit that though proposals have been submitted to the District Collector through the Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajampet, for cancellation of the irregular assignments in respect of the subject matter lands, the authorities concerned instead of taking the matter to the logical end, for the best reasons know to them, have not taken any further action in the matter. 9. The learned Assistant Government Pleader also, on instructions, states that no action, with regard to the pattas which are stated to be obtained fraudulently by the petitioners as stated in the counter-affidavit, was taken. 10. In reply to the said submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioners states that in the light of the deposition of the concerned Mandal Revenue Inspector, O.S No.185 of 1995 on the file of the Munsif Magistrate, Sidhout, the allegations/contentions with reference to the DKT pattas granted in favor of the petitioners are not sustainable. 11. Considering the submissions made, this Court, more particularly in the light of the averments made in the counter-affidavit of the respondent No.4, deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition, providing that the NJS,J W.P No.3694 of 2019 4 respondent authorities are liberty to initiate appropriate action against the respondent Nos.4 to 6, by following the procedure contemplated under law. Any such exercise undertaken by them shall be strictly in accordance with the relevant statute and the same shall be completed as expeditiously as possible, within a period of three (03) months from the date of issuance of the notice. 12. With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA Date:18.11.2025 Ksj