APHC010477942022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] MONDAY,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 29047/2022 Between: 1. CHIKATI VENKATALAKSHMI,, W/O. KAMAL, AGED 45 YEARS, R/O. 71ST WARD, GAJUWAKA, VISAKHAPATNAM. 2. CHENNURI SOMU KUMAR,, S/O. SATYANARAYANA, AGED 30 YEARS, R/ O. 71ST WARD, GAJUWAKA, VISAKHAPATNAM. 3. BETHA ADINARAYANA,, S/O. MACHIMU NAIDU, AGED 54 YEARS, R/O. 71ST WARD, GAJUWAKA, VISAKHAPATNAM. 4. ESAKA KUMARI, , W/O. JAGANNADHAM, AGED 45 YEARS, R/O. 71ST WARD, GAJUWAKA, VISAKHAPATNAM. 5. JAMMALA DEVI,, W/O. PAIDI NAIDU, AGED 36 YEARS, R/O. 71ST WARD, GAJUWAKA, VISAKHAPATNAM. 6. KANTIMUCHI GANGAMMA, , W/O. NOOKANNA, AGED 58 YEARS, R/O. 71ST WARD, GAJUWAKA, VISAKHAPATNAM. 7. PATRUNI RAMESH,, S/O. SIMHACHALAM, AGED 40 YEARS, R/O. 71ST WARD, GAJUWAKA, VISAKHAPATNAM. 8. GUNTAPALLI SATYANARAYANA, , S/O. THAMMAYYA CHARI, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O. 71ST WARD, GAJUWAKA, VISAKHAPATNAM. 9. KANTUMUCHU KASULAMMA, , W/O. NOOKARAJU, AGED 60 YEARS, R/O. 71ST WARD, GAJUWAKA, VISAKHAPATNAM. 10. SARIPALLI VARALAKSHMI,, W/O. SURYANARAYANA, AGED 44 YEARS, R/ O. 71ST GAJ AWAKA, VISAKHAPATNAM. 11. MUGGU DURGAMMA, , W/O. NARSIMHAMURTHI, AGED 25 YEARS, R/O. 71ST WARD, GAJUWAKA, VISAKHAPATNAM. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI,AMARVATHI,GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 3. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, VISAKHAPATNAM. 4. TAHSILDAR, , GAJUWAKA MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM 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 any Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in interfering with the petitioners properties to dispossess them high handedly is illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and to consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the petitioners properties covered by possession certificate issued by the 4th respondent in Rc.Nos.11776, 11779, 11770, 11783, 11777, 11780, 11782, 11784, 11781, 11778, 11768 dated 14.6.2022 and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2022 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 dispossess the petitioners from their respective properties covered by possession certificates issued by 4th respondent in Rc.Nos, 11776, 11779, 11770, 11783, 11777, 11780, 11782, 11781,11778, 11768 dated 14.6.2022 Pending disposal of Writ Petition. IA 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 may be pleased to implead the Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation represented by its Commissioner, Visakhapatnam and the Zonal Commissioner, Gajuwaka Zone - VI, Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation as respondent Nos. 5 and 6 in the writ petition and to pass IA NO: 2 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 No. 5 and 6 not to demolish structures of the petitioners existing in the property covered by possession certificates issued by the 4rt respondent and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. V V SATISH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER: Declaring the action of the respondents in trying to dispossess the petitioners from their properties in highhanded manner, as illegal, arbitrary, the present Writ Petition is filed. 2. Heard Sri Nagendra, learned counsel representing learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms.Vijayeswari, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the Respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners while reiterating the contents of the affidavit contended that the petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of their respective sheds situated in various extents between 94 to 98 sq.yards in Sy.No.87/1 of 71st Ward, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam. While so, the 2nd respondent allotted house loans to the petitioners under proceedings dated 25.12.2020. Thereafter, considering the long possession over the aforesaid sites, the 4th respondent issued possession certificates dated 14.06.2022 to the petitioners. On 03.09.2022, the 4th respondent, along with his staff came to the subject premises and resorted to evict them from the same. 4. Learned counsel further submitted that aggrieved by the action of the 4th respondent, petitioners filed present writ petition wherein this Court vide orders dated 09.09.2022 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2022, granted interim order directing the respondents not to dispossess and interfere with the possession of the petitioners over the subject property without following due process of law. Accordingly, prayed to pass appropriate orders treating interim orders as final orders. 5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader, on written instructions dated 03.05.2025, submitted that the subject land is classified as Government land, the possession certificates issued by the then Tahsildar were not traced in the office of the 4th respondent and any further action will be taken by following due process of law, as such, prayed to close the writ petition. 6. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by both the learned counsel. 7. When the respondent authorities are interfering with possession of the subject property, the petitioners approached this Court and this Court granted interim orders directing the respondents not to interfere with the subject property except under due process of law. A perusal of the written instructions of the Tahsildar dated 03.05.2025 would goes to show that the respondents would follow due process of law to take any further action, as such, instead of going into the merits and demerits of the matter, this Court is inclined to dispose the writ petition treating interim orders as final orders. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. The respondent authorities are directed not to interfere with possession of the petitioners over the subject property except under due process of law. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date: 13th October, 2025 RKS