Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 56338 (AP)

BETHA HEMA KUMAR v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

WP/17853/2021 · 2025-10-07

B Krishna Mohan

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010293332021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH WEDNESDAY, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN WRIT PETITION NO: 17853/2021 Between: 1. BETHA HEMA KUMAR, S/O.SRI. GOVINDARAO HINDU, AGED 46 YEARS, OCC.AGRICULTURE R/O.D.NO. 8 UNGUTURU MANDAL, W.G.DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, AP 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ELURU, AP 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, UNGUTUR MANDAL, W.G.DISTRICT, AP 4. THE TAHSILDAR, UNGUTUR MANDAL, W.G.DI PRADESH 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 toto issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent Nos.3 assigning the land measuring an extent of Ac.3.65 cents in R.S.No.116 of Kaikaram Village, Ungutur Mandal, W.G.District, Andhra Pradesh to the landless poor under -Navaratnalu IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN WRIT PETITION NO: 17853/2021 BETHA HEMA KUMAR, S/O.SRI. GOVINDARAO HINDU, AGED 46 YEARS, OCC.AGRICULTURE R/O.D.NO. 8-78/1, KAIKARAM VILLAGE UNGUTURU MANDAL, W.G.DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH ...PETITIONER AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL REVENUE DEPARTMENT A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, AP THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ELURU, THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, UNGUTUR MANDAL, W.G.DISTRICT, AP THE TAHSILDAR, UNGUTUR MANDAL, W.G.DISTRICT ANDHRA ...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 toto issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature declaring the action of the Respondent Nos.3 assigning the land measuring an extent of Ac.3.65 cents in R.S.No.116 of Kaikaram Village, Ungutur Mandal, W.G.District, Andhra Pradesh to the Navaratnalu-Pedaluandariki Illu- Schem IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3233] THE EIGHTH DAY OF OCTOBER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN BETHA HEMA KUMAR, S/O.SRI. GOVINDARAO HINDU, AGED 46 78/1, KAIKARAM VILLAGE UNGUTURU MANDAL, W.G.DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH ...PETITIONER THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL REVENUE DEPARTMENT A.P. SECRETARIAT, THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ELURU, THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, UNGUTUR MANDAL, STRICT ANDHRA ...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 toto issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature declaring the action of the Respondent Nos.3-4325 in assigning the land measuring an extent of Ac.3.65 cents in R.S.No.116 of Kaikaram Village, Ungutur Mandal, W.G.District, Andhra Pradesh to the Scheme though the 2 BKM,J W.P.No.17853 of 2021 same is classified as Bandi Daari (Cart Track) in Revenue Records, thereby depriving the petitioner and other ayacutdars from using the said land to have an access to their agricultural site situated by the side of the said Cart Track is highly illegal, arbitrary, contrary to Board Standing Order 15 (4) and also contrary to law and consequently direct the Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 not to assign the said land and to pass M IA NO: 1 OF 2021 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 assign the land to an extent of Ac.3.65 cents in R.S.No.116 of Kaikaram Village, Unguturu Mandal, West Godavari District, AP, pending disposal of the writ petition and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2021 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 pleased to vacate the interim order granted on 24-08-2021 in WP.No. 17853/2021 and dismiss the writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. I RAJESH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 3 BKM,J W.P.No.17853 of 2021 The Court made the following ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondents. 2. This writ petition was filed questioning the action of the respondent Nos.2 to 4 in assigning the land admeasuring an extent of Ac.3.65 cents in R.S.No.116 of Kaikaram Village, Ungutur Mandal, West Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh, to the landless poor under “Navaratnalu-Pedalandariki Illu” scheme though the same is classified as Bandi Daari (Car Track) in revenue records, thereby depriving the petitioner and other ayacutdars from using the said land to have an access to the petitioner’s agricultural site situated by the side of the said Car Track. 3. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, relying upon the counter of the 4th respondent, submits that the land to an extent of Ac.5.65 cents in Kaikaram Village of Unguturu Mandal, is classified as “Kalidaari” poramboke, but, not classified as Bandi Daari or Car track in revenue records, which leads from Timmayya palem to Chebrolu Village and out of total extent of Ac.5.65 cents, only Ac.2.00 cents in R.S.No.116 was identified for house sites to the houseless poor under the welfare scheme, as there are no suitable alternative government lands available in the said Village. Vide proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Eluru and the proceedings of the District Collector, Eluru, West Godavari, dated 01.02.2020, necessary acquisition was made for 4 BKM,J W.P.No.17853 of 2021 the subject extent from Kalidaari poramboke to the house sites and necessary changes were made in the Village Accounts of Kaikaram Village and the remaining land to an extent of Ac.3.65 cents in R.S.No.116/1 is still continued as Kalidaari poramboke, without any disturbance which is detailed as under: R.S.No. Extent Classification Remarks 116/1 Ac.3.65 cts Kalidaari The existing kalidaari is still continued as “Kalidaari (road)” 116/2 Ac.2.00 cts House sites Proposed for house sites to the homeless poor under Navaratnalu-Pedalandariki Illu program including two connected roads with 30ft. width 4. The Gram Panchayat, Kaikaram, passed resolution No.24 dated 06.11.2019 for providing house sites in the said land of two acres. There is no inconvenience to the riots towards pathway/passage and transportation of their agricultural activities. The adjacent riots never raised any objection at the time of conducting survey of the subject land for the house sites. No irrigation source exists adjacent to the Kalidaari land. The petitioner is having Ac.0.98 cents in R.S.No.430/4B1, 4D2A, 4D1 and his brother is having Ac.1.00 cents in R.S.No.430/4B2 of A.Gokavaram Village and both of them have ‘Kankara Gothulu’ on the ground and there is no cultivation in their Zeroythi lands of Ac.1.98 cents. Two connected roads with 30ft. width to the existing road from the lands of the petitioner and his brother to access to their lands and one another existing connected road with 30ft. is situated adjacent to the western side of the proposed land to access to other Zeroythi lands, as detailed in the 5 BKM,J W.P.No.17853 of 2021 explanatory sketch prepared by the 4th respondent. The respondent Nos.1 to 4 have not proposed the land to an extent of Ac.3.65 cents in the above said survey number, for any house sites, as alleged by the petitioner. 5. In view of the above said facts and circumstances, as there is no merit in the case of the petitioner, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Interim order, if any, deemed to have been vacated. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________ JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN 08.10.2025 MDP