APHC010063752020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3233] WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. KRISHNA MOHAN WRIT PETITION NO: 3860/2020 Between: 1. MANDAPAKA NAGA SRIRAMULU, S/O. VENKATESWARA RAO, AGED 71 YEARS, R/O H.NO 10-12/1, JAWADI VARI STREET, SRUNGAVRUKSHAM VILLAGE, PALAKODERU MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRL.SCCRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ELURU. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, NARSAPURAM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, PALAKODERU MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P R K AMERANDRA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE (AP) 2 HBKM,J W.P.No.3860 of 2020 The Court made the following Order:- Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 2. This writ petition was filed questioning the notice issued by the 4th respondent dated 09.01.2020 in the matter of resumption of Government land in an extent of Ac.0.30 cents in R.S.Nos.542/2B, 542-3 and 542-1A2. As per the above said impugned notice of the 4th respondent dated 09.01.2020, the subject land was sought to be resumed by way of issuing the above said impugned notice for the purpose of allotment of house sites under the housing welfare scheme of the State, following the G.O.Ms.No.259 dated 21.06.2016 to pay the compensation for the original assignee/the petitioner herein. According to the said impugned notice dated 09.01.2020, the petitioner is having D.Patta.No.897/B/75, dated 26.11.1982 to an extent of Ac.0.17 cents, Ac.0.05 cents and Ac.0.08 cents in R.S.Nos.542-2B, 542-3 and 542-1A2. For the purpose of calling for objections, if any, from the petitioner, 15 days time was given under the impugned notice dated 09.01.2020. It appears that the petitioner submitted objections on 01.02.2020, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner. 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 subject land was resumed by the 4th respondent vide proceedings dated 28.02.2020 and for the purpose of deposit of the 3 HBKM,J W.P.No.3860 of 2020 compensation amount, as the account details of the petitioner was not submitted, the same could not be done and the amount is lying with the respondent authorities concerned and as and when the petitioner approaches the respondent authorities concerned, the said compensation amount will be paid, as per the proceedings of the 4th respondent dated 28.02.2020. 4. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the resumption order copy was not served to the petitioner. 5. In view of the same, as it is borne out of the record that the resumption order was already passed by the 4th respondent dated 28.02.2020 and the corresponding proceedings vide Roc.No.17/2020/B, dated 28.02.2020 was also issued with respect to the payment of compensation and want of account details, liberty is given to the petitioner to work out his remedies under law, if so, aggrieved by the resumption order of the 4th respondent dated 28.02.2020. The 4th respondent shall serve the resumption order copy to the petitioner within a week’s time from the date of receipt of this order. 6. After the matter is heard and the order is dictated as above, the learned counsel for the petitioner makes a request to take up this matter under the caption “for being mentioned” informing that there is an interim order in this case dated 19.02.2022, with a direction to the respondents not to evict the petitioner from the subject land. 4 HBKM,J W.P.No.3860 of 2020 7. But the learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that the said interim order copy was received by the 4th respondent on 14.03.2020, by that time, the resumption order was already passed dated 28.02.2020. 8. In view of the same, as the learned counsel for the petitioner specifically submits that the petitioner did not receive the resumption order, the 4th respondent is directed to serve the copy of the same to work out his remedies as per law. 9. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of. 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 13.08.2025 MDP/PGT