APHC010053732025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] THURSDAY ,THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 2831/2025 Between: Matam Adayya ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K VENKATESH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE The Court made the following: 2 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 2831/2025 ORDER: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India seeking the following reliefs:- “to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of declaring the action of the respondents in seeking to disposes the petitioner from his land extent of Ac.4.89 cents in Sy.No.20/22 (LPNo.74) situated at Voyyedu Village, Rajavommangi Mandal, Alluri Sitha Rama Raju District as illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from his land mentioned above without following the due process of law, in the interest of Justice and pass such other order.” 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner acquired the subject property admeasuring to an extent of Ac.4.89 cents in survey No.20/22 situated at Voyyedu Village, Rajavommangi Mandal, Alluri Sitha Rama Raju District through an unregistered sale deed in the year 2004 from the original pattadar Sri Melam Neelamayya. Since then, the petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of the subject property. While so, without following due process of law, respondent Nos.3 and 4 are interfering 3 with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property of the petitioner. 4. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for the respondents furnished written instructions dated 05.02.2025, wherein it is stated that originally Sri Melam Thamayya was granted patta and after the demise of Sri Melam Thamayya, the land was succeeded by his son Sri Melam Neelamayya/5th respondent. After succession, the name of the 5th respondent was mutated in the revenue records and pattadar passbooks and 1B adangal were also issued to the 5th respondent. The claim of the petitioner that he acquired the subject property through an unregistered sale deed is disputed by the pattadar/5th respondent and the 5th respondent being the original pattadar is in possession of the property. 5. Having regard to the submissions made by both the learned counsel and on perusal of the material placed on record and the written instructions of the 3rd respondent, it is observed that one Sri Melam Thamayya was the original pattadar of the subject land and the same was inherited by his son Sri Melam Neelamayya/5th respondent and he has been in possession and enjoyment of the subject property. As contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that pursuant to the unregistered sale deed dated 17.07.2004, the petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of the subject property was not confirmed by respondent Nos.3 and 4. 4 In the absence of any proof of documents to show that the petitioner is in possession of the property, the petitioner is not entitled any interim order against the respondents more particularly against the 5th respondent. It is further observed that respondent Nos.3 and 4 are not interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property, the unofficial respondent No.5 is in possession of the property and without initiating the proceedings by way of LTR before the concerned authority/Court of law, the petitioner chose to file this Writ Petition contrary to the facts. 6. Considering the submissions made by both the learned counsel, this Court is of the considered opinion that the possession and enjoyment of the property of the petitioner was neither confirmed by the record filed by him nor by the Revenue authorities vide their instructions. However, this Court is inclined to pass an order directing the petitioner to initiate appropriate legal proceedings before the Court of law to settle the title dispute between the petitioner and the 5th respondent. Further the petitioner and respondents are directed to maintain status-quo obtaining as on today in respect of the subject property, till finalization of the said title dispute. 7. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 5 As a sequel miscellaneous application, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 06.02.2025 TTPPSS 6 130 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 2831/2025 06.02.2025 TTPPSS