APHC010290452019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH MONDAY, THE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA WRIT PETITION No. Between: Thota Venkatadri Naidu, S/o.Late T.Nadipanna Naidu, aged about 55 years, Occ Cultivation and agricultural coolie, R/o.Thotavaripalle, Potukanumu Village, Puthalapattu Mandal, Chittoor District AND 1. The State of Andhra Pr Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District and others. Counsel for the Petitioner Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following The present writ petition is filed seeking to declare the action of the respondents in interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject matter land of an extent of Ac.1.5 Paturu Revenue Village, Puthalapattu Mandal, Chittoor District, without following the procedure as illegal, arbitrary, etc., and for a consequential direction to the respondent Nos.1 to 4 to consider the claim of the petitioner for grant of assignment of the said land to the petitioner and pass such other order that may be just and necessary. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA WRIT PETITION No.13326 OF 2019 Thota Venkatadri Naidu, S/o.Late T.Nadipanna Naidu, aged about 55 years, Occ Cultivation and agricultural coolie, R/o.Thotavaripalle, Potukanumu Village, Puthalapattu Mandal, Chittoor District. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Prl. Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr.S.V.Muni Reddy Counsel for the Respondents: G.P. for Revenue G.P. for Assignment Mr.K.V.Vijaya Kumar The Court made the following ORDER: The present writ petition is filed seeking to declare the action of the respondents in interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject matter land of an extent of Ac.1.50 cents in Survey No.310 of Paturu Revenue Village, Puthalapattu Mandal, Chittoor District, without following the procedure as illegal, arbitrary, etc., and for a consequential direction to the respondent Nos.1 to 4 to consider the claim of the for grant of assignment of the said land to the petitioner and pass such other order that may be just and necessary. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH DAY OF DECEMBER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA Thota Venkatadri Naidu, S/o.Late T.Nadipanna Naidu, aged about 55 years, Occ Cultivation and agricultural coolie, R/o.Thotavaripalle, ...Petitioner adesh, Rep. by its Prl. Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District, ...Respondents The present writ petition is filed seeking to declare the action of the respondents in interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of 0 cents in Survey No.310 of Paturu Revenue Village, Puthalapattu Mandal, Chittoor District, without following the procedure as illegal, arbitrary, etc., and for a consequential direction to the respondent Nos.1 to 4 to consider the claim of the for grant of assignment of the said land to the petitioner and 2 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia submits that the above said extent of Ac.1.50 cents in survey No.310 is adjacent to the petitioner’s patta land situated in Survey Nos.308 and 309 of Paturu Revenue Village and is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner for the last two and half decades and prior to that the petitioner’s ancestors were in possession and enjoyment of the same. He submits that in the said extent of Ac.1.50 cents, the petitioner with the aid of Government funds planted mango saplings and developed mango garden with the help of Drip Irrigation System. He submits that the petitioner being a landless poor person, made a representation to the concerned Authority/respondent No.2 with a request to grant DKT Patta in respect of Ac.1.50 cents in survey No.310; however, no further action is taken on the said representation. He submits that in fact the respondent No.4 is depriving the petitioner of the benefit of assignment under the influence of some third parties, who got themselves impleaded as respondent Nos.5 to 8 in the present writ petition. Learned counsel submits that as the petitioner had already developed the above said extent of Ac.1.50 cents and the same is required to reach his lands situated in Survey Nos.308 and 309, unless a direction is issued to the official respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for assignment, serious prejudice and irreparable loss would be caused to the petitioner. 3. On the other hand, Mr.K.Arjun Chowdary, learned Assistant Government Pleader representing the respondent Nos.1 to 4 made submissions with reference to the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No.4. He submits that the land in Survey No.310 admeasuring Acs.4.98 cents is classified as “Methabeedu”/Government poramboke and the entire extent was kept for the use of villagers/ryots of the village for grazing their cattle. Therefore, he submits that the assignment of the said land to the petitioner is not feasible. Referring to the assertions made in paragraph No.6 of the counter affidavit, he submits that the petitioner was 3 evicted from the land encroached in survey No.310 on 04.9.2019 i.e., even prior to filing of the writ petition. He has also drawn the attention of this Court to the material filed along with the counter affidavit of respondent No.4. 4. Mr.K.V.Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 to 8 argued the matter by supporting the submissions made by the learned Assistant Government Pleader. He submits that the subject matter land is “Methabeedu”/grazing land and the same cannot be assigned to the petitioner or any other person. He also submits that in fact the petitioner No.1 filed O.S. No.712 of 2019 on the file of the Court of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor for grant of permanent injunction in respect of the subject matter land and suppressed the said material aspect. He submits that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed for suppression of material facts. 5. This Court has considered the submissions made and perused the material on record. At the outset, it may be noted that the petitioner is not owner of the subject matter property and in occupation of the same. Further, though reply affidavit is filed to the counter affidavit of respondent No.4, there is no denial that the subject matter land is not “Methabeedu” / grazing land, which is meant for the purpose of grazing cattle. In such circumstances and as it is settled law that the grazing lands cannot be assigned, unless a notification is issued changing its classification, the relief sought for by the petitioner seeking a direction to the authorities concerned, much less a direction to consider the request for grant of assignment of the subject matter land, cannot be granted. 6. In so far as the eviction of the petitioner from the subject matter land is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the absence of issuing any show cause notice and passing orders as contemplated under law, the question of eviction of the petitioner does 4 not arise at all. He also submits that except making a statement in the counter affidavit, no material is filed in support of the submission that the petitioner is evicted from the subject matter land on 04.9.2019. At this juncture, it may be appropriate to refer to the order dated 26.9.2019 wherein the learned Single Judge while granting status quo categorically recorded the submission made by the learned Assistant Government Pleader that the petitioner was evicted from the encroachments. As per the observations/direction of learned Single Judge, a counter affidavit was filed as long back as on 07.3.2020 along with the material referring to eviction of the petitioner from the subject matter land. No doubt, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner the order of eviction much less a show cause notice prior to eviction of the petitioner were enclosed to the said counter affidavit, however it is categorically asserted that the petitioner was evicted from the subject matter land. If the petitioner is evicted from the subject matter land without following due procedure, the petitioner can work out the remedies in accordance with law. 7. Further, as stated by the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.5 to 8, the factum of filing of the suit in respect of the subject matter property by the petitioner is not stated in the writ affidavit, which amounts to suppression of the material fact. Under the said circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief sought for. 8. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. Needless to observe that if the petitioner is in lawful possession of the land in survey No.308 and 309, the same shall not be interfered with. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ NINALA JAYASURYA,J December 29, 2025. vasu