Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 59534 (AP)

PAILA VENKATAMMA v. THE STATE OF AP

WP/36060/2025 · 2025-12-25

Subba Reddy Satti

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010697662025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 36060/2025 Between: 1. PAILA VENKATAMMA, D/O. PAPARAO, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/O. 13-143/2, ADAVARAM, AMPOLU, SRIKAKULAM, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. PAILA SANTHOSHAM,, W/O. PAPARAO, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, R/O. 13-143, ADAVARAM, AMPOLU, SRIKAKULAM, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI. -522237 2. THE DISTRICT SUBCOLLECTOR, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. -532001 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, SRIKAKULAM REVENUE DIVISION, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. -532001 4. THE TAHSILDAR, GARA MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. - 532001 ...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 a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents authorities in attempting to disposes the petitioners from their land ad-measuring measuring acres 0.06 cents in Sy.No.12P for the 1st petitioner and acres 0.06 cents in Sy.No.12P for the 2nd petitioner in Adavaram Village, Gara Mandal, Srikakulam District, without issuance of notice and following the procedure contemplated under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency Act, 2013 as being contrary to law, illegal, arbitrary and against Article 300A of the Constitution and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners in respect of the above mentioned lands without following due process of law and pass 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 to direct the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners land ad-measuring acres 0.06 cents in Sy.No.12P for the 1st petitioner and acres 0.06 cents in Sy.No.12P for the 2nd petitioner in Adavaram Village, Gara Mandal, Srikakulam District, without following due process of law pending disposal of the writ petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. K SOUNDARYA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER Heard Mrs.K.Soundarya, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri B.V.Satyanarayana, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondents. 2. Petitioners, 2 in number, were assigned lands of an extent of Ac.0.06 cents each in S.No.12P of Adavaram village, Gara Mandal, Srikakulam District vide Rc.No.542/07 dated 13.12.2007 and Rc.No.542/07B dated 13.12.2007 respectively. Both the petitioners constructed houses and have been residing therein. Copies of the D-Form pattas were filed as Ex.P1 and electricity bills and house tax receipts were filed as Exs.P2 and P3. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the 4th respondent without issuing any notice, is trying to dispossess the petitioners from the subject property. 4. Per contra, Sri B.V.Satyanarayana, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, on instructions, while not disputing the issuance of D- Form pattas to the petitioners, would submit that as per the SLR an extent of Ac.1.74 cents in S.No.12 is classified as Government land – “Rasta”. He would also submit that 4th respondent is not interfering with the possession of the petitioners. 5. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the admission stage with the consent of learned counsel on either side, directing the learned 4th respondent not to interfere with the petitioners’ possession and enjoyment over the subject property, without following due process of law. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI PVD