IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE St ' of PRESENT 2^ ^PfH ^ THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA (. WRIT PETITION NO: 10611 OF 2025 Between: 1. Sreeram Venkata Sumanth, S/o.Venkata Sudhakara Babu @ Pala Babu, Aged about 31 Years, Occ: Business, R/o.D.No.16/375, M/s. Sree Lakshmi General Stores, Near Super Speciality Hospital, Prasanthigramam, Puttaparthi Post and Mandal, Sree Satya Sai District. 2. S.Manasa, D/o.Venkata Sudhakara Babu @ Pala Baou, Aged about 26 Years, Occ: Employee, R/o.D.No.16/375, M/s. Sree Lakshmi Genera! Stores, Near Super Speciality Hospital, Prasanthigramam, Puttaparthi Post and Mandal, Sree Satya Sai District. ...PETITIONERS AND 1. The State of AP, Revenue Department, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. The District Collector, At Puttaparthi,Sri Satya Sai District. 3. The Tahsildar, Puttaparthi Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District. 4. Lekkala Pallavi, D/o. Lekkala Nagabhushanam, R/o.D.No.8/388, Pedda kamma vari palli, Puttaparthi, Sri Satya Sai District. 5. Lekkala Pavan Kumar, S/o. Lekkala Nagabhushanam, R/o.D.No.8/388, Pedda kamma vari palli, Puttaparthi, Sri Satya Sai District. 6. Lekkala Nagabhushanam, S/o. Lekkala Gopala Krishna, R/o.D.No.8/388, Pedda kamma vari palli, Puttaparthi, Sri Satya Sai District. ; ...RESPONDENTS f 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, order, or direction, more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Certiorari, quashing the impugned notice issued by Respondent No.3 vide Rc.No.A/109/2025/A dated 01.04.2025 as ultra vires, lacking jurisdiction, unlawful, arbitrary, and violative of the Principles of Natural Justice as well as Articles 14, 21, and 300-A of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the petitioners further pray that this Honble Court be pleased to direct the Respondent No.3 to not to interfere with petitioner property in Sy.No. 1-1A having an Ex.Ac. 14-26 Cents out of it an Ex.Ac. 1-00 Cents out of it Ac.0-10 Cents out of it an Ex.Ac.0-06.73 Cents or 0.027 Hectors in Plot No.8 and 9 open site and in it a constructed RCC building having D.No. 16/375. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 to not to take any coercive steps and stay all proceedings pursuant to the impugned notice issued by the Respondent No.3 Vide Rc.No.A/109/2025/A dated 01.04.2025 pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI KRISTAM SAKTHI NIRANJAN GUPTHA Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 4 & 6: SRI R SUJAN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.5:— The Court made the following: ORDER HC010199452025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT the HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 10611/2025 getween: Sreeram Venkata Sumanth and Others ...PETITIONER{S) AND State Of An and Others Counsel for the Petitioner(S): TKRISTAM sakthi niranjan guptha Counsel for the Respondent(S): TOP for revenue 2.RSUJAN KUMAR The Court made the following: RESPONDENT(S) 1 ne 2 the HON’BLE SRi JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 10611/2025 This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution Qf the India seeking the following reliefs:- “to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari quashing the impugned notice issued by respondent No. 3 vide Rc. No.A/109/2025/A dated 01.04.2025 as ultra vires, lacking jurisdiction, unlawful, arbitrary and violative of the Principles of Natural Justice as well as Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. Consequently the petitioners further pray that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the respondent No.3 not to interfere with petitioners’ property in Sy.No.1-1A having an extent of Ac.14-26 Cents out of it an extent of Ac. 1.00 Cents out of it Ac. 0.10 Cents out of it an extent of Ac.0-06.73 Cents or 0.027 Hectors in Plot No. 8 and 9 open site and in It a constructed RCC building having D.No. 16/375 and pass such other order. ” 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and the learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 to 6. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there are disputes between the petitioners and their mother in respect of the subject property. To resolve their dispute, the petitioners as well as their mother instituted a civil suit for partition and the same is pending for consideration. While things stood thus, on the guise of the acquisition of the subject property by the unofficial respondents through a sale deed said to have been executed by the petitioners’ mother, the unofficial respondents submits a representation to respondent No.3 to get eviction of the petitioners from the subject property. Pursuant to the representation dated 29.03.2025, the 3'"^ respondent issued the impugned proceedings/notice dated 01.04.2025 without any jurisdiction and without observing the principles of natural justice. 4. Learned Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 3 submit that there are disputes between the petitioners and their mother in respect of the subject property and they instituted their respective civil suits to sought out their rights over the subject property before the Court below. Pending the said civil suits, the 3'”'^ respondent is not empowered to issue such impugned proceedings/notice. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.4 to 6 submits that respondent Nos.4 to 6 acquired the subject property through a registered sale deed from the petitioner’s mother. Even after purchase of the subject property, the petitioners herein are not handing over the possession of the property, then the 4*^ respondent submitted a representation to the 3"^ respondent for eviction of the petitioners from the subject property. Considering the said representation, the 3'"^ respondent passed the impugned proceedings/notice directing the petitioners to vacate the subject premises and to hand over the same to the 4 unofficial respondents, who are the valid and bona-fide purchasers of the subject property. r 6. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and the learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 to 6 and on perusal of the material placed on the record, it is observed that there are disputes between the petitioners and their mother in respect of the subject property. The unofficial respondents acquired the subject property through the sale deed from their mother of the petitioners. Then, civil suit was instituted before the court below. It is further observed that the petitioners and unofficial respondents both are parties to the civil suit, but for one reasons or ) the other, the unofficial respondents are trying to get evict the petitioners from the subject property through the 3^^^ respondent, without waiting till the verdict of the court below and, it is not possible to them to get the same through the Court below they are trying by other impermissible methods. It is settled preposition of law once the rights of the petitioners and respondents are pending for adjudication before the civil Court of law no party can invoke other than the suit rd proceedings, contrary to law. It is further observed that the 3 respondent on the guise of the representation of the unofficial respondents acting as a prosecutor and as a judge, issuing the '^Pugned notice iIS certainly without jurisdiction and abuse Of process of his office. 7. With the reasons stated above, the impugned proceedings/notice dated 01. hereby set aside. 04.2025 issued by the 3 However, the petitioners respondent is and respondents are at liberty to move to get appropriate relief, appropriate/proper application before the Court below in accordance with law. 8. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel miscellaneous also stand closed application, pending, if any, shall Sd/- p. SECTION OFFICER //true COPY// To. Atnaravathi,^Guntu7Di«ricbdepartment, Secretariat 2. The District Collector, 3. The Tahsildar ’ VelagapudI At Puttaparthi.Sri Satya Sal Puttaparthi Mandal, i District. Sri Satya Sal District. Sakthi Niranjan Guptha, Revenue, High Court of Andhra Sujan Kumar, Advocate 4. One CC to Sri Kristam 5- Two CCs to GP for 6- OneCCtoSriR 7. Three CD Copies Advocate fOPUCJ I Pradesh. [OUT] fOPUCJ TF HIGH COURT DATED:24/04/2025 ORDER WP.No.10611 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE W.P., WITHOUT COSTS