APHC010076512020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: Between: Potti Pentayya The State Of Ap and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. NIMMAGADDA REVATHI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents the petitioner to vacate from his landed property of Ac.1.00 cents Sy.No.981 of Achuthapuram Revenue Village in Koyyalagudem Mandal of West Godavari District 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents. 3. It is stated that the Petitioner was assigned land vide D dated 15.02.2012 with respect to the subject land. However, without IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 4770/2020 ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: NIMMAGADDA REVATHI Counsel for the Respondent(S): The Court made the following order: The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents are insisting on the petitioner to vacate from his landed property of Ac.1.00 cents Sy.No.981 of Achuthapuram Revenue Village in Koyyalagudem Mandal of rned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents. It is stated that the Petitioner was assigned land vide D-Form patta dated 15.02.2012 with respect to the subject land. However, without IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3458] THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT(S) insisting on the petitioner to vacate from his landed property of Ac.1.00 cents situated in Sy.No.981 of Achuthapuram Revenue Village in Koyyalagudem Mandal of rned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Form patta dated 15.02.2012 with respect to the subject land. However, without assigning any reason, the respondents have asked the Petitioner to vacate the subject land. 4. The 4th respondent-Tahsildar filed a counter affidavit stating that the Petitioner's claim to the land is not sustainable. The Petitioner has obtained a fake D-Form patta. It is further contended that there is no revenue village in the name of Achuthapuram, and verification of the office seal on the D-Form patta appears different from the office seal of Koyyalagudem Tahsildar. Therefore, the respondents have issued notices under Section 7 and Section 6 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act on 02.01.2020 and 19.01.2020, respectively, requiring the Petitioner to vacate the subject land. It is stated that the Petitioner has refused to receive the notices; therefore the same were affixed at their residential building. 5. It is contended by the respondents that after issuance of notices under Sections 7 and 6 of the Act, the existing palm oil plantation on the land was removed, and proposals for change of classification of the land were also submitted to the Collector on 11.12.2019, for approval and the same has been effected in the revenue records. 6. The respondents thus prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition. 7. In reply, the learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that in recognition of the said patta and the Petitioner's possession of over the subject land, pattadar passbooks and title deeds have also been issued. 8. As observed from the record, the notices purported to have been issued by the Tahsildar under Sections 6 and 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act have not been placed before the Court. However, the Petitioner relies on D-Form patta issued on 15.02.2012. Suppose the respondents consider the said patta to be bogus and invalid; they are at liberty to proceed in accordance with the law after conducting a necessary enquiry into the issue. Without performing such an exercise, the respondents cannot resort to evict the Petitioner without due process of law. Moreover, the process of law stated to have been invoked by the respondents, as mentioned in the counter affidavit, has not been placed before the Court. 9. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents that they shall not dispossess the Petitioner from the subject land without following the due process of law. 10. It is further observed that the respondents are at liberty, if advised, to conduct an inquiry into the D-Form patta under which the Petitioner claims title to the subject land and pass appropriate orders. The respondents shall provide sufficient opportunity if any such action is contemplated. 11. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the above observations. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed. _______________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA Date: 08.01.2025 BSK 134 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 4770/2020 Date: 08.01.2025 BSK