APHC010077252022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 5239/2022 BETWEEN: MALLA DARA MALLESWARA RAO THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 1. V Y PRABHUVU COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. GP FOR FORESTS 3. MANOJ KUMAR BETHAPUDI The Court made the following The short grievance of the petitioner is respondents are threatening to dispossess admeasuring to an extent of agricultural Ac.155 Ac.183-68 cents in Sy.Nos.1/2, 1/1B, 2/3, 3/1, 3/4, 3/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] THE THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 5239/2022 MALLA DARA MALLESWARA RAO ...PETITIONER AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH ...RESPONDENT(S) COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: V Y PRABHUVU COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT(S): GP FOR REVENUE GP FOR FORESTS MANOJ KUMAR BETHAPUDI Court made the following order: grievance of the petitioner is that the are threatening to dispossess him from his land an extent of agricultural Ac.155-68 out of Sy.Nos.1/2, 1/1B, 2/3, 3/1, 3/4, 3/6, 3/7, 4/2, [3332] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT(S) the from his land 68 out of 6, 3/7, 4/2, 4/3, 5/1, 5/2, 6/2, 6/4, 6/5,7/1,7/2, 7/3, 7/5, 7/6, 8/2, 8/3, 8/5, 8/7, 10, 10/1, 10/2, 10/3, 11/1, 11/2, 11/3, 11/4, 12/1 and 12/2 situated at 139 Dharapalem Village, Patha Mallampet Revenue Village, Golugonda Mandal, Narsipatnam Revenue Division, Visakhapatnam District. 2. Heard Sri V.Y.Prabhuvu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Krishna Praneeth, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and Ms. Vijayeswari, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Forest. 3. Sri V.Y.Prabhuvu, learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the contents of the affidavit, submitted that the petitioner’s father and his brothers purchased an extent of Ac.183.68 cents in village No.139 of Dharapalem Pathamallampet in Sy.Nos.1 to 12 and since then they have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. After the demise of petitioner’s father and his brothers (uncles of the petitioner) the petitioner sold away Ac.28.50 cents in Sy.No.9 on 09.06.2006 and the remaining extent of Ac.155.68 cents is in possession of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner entered into an agreement of sale to sell Ac.155.68 cents to five individuals. While so, the officials of revenue department and forest department are threatening the petitioner to evict him from the subject land as the land belongs to the Forest and Revenue Departments. Such action is without any notice and without following due process of law. If such action is materialized, it affects the rights of the petitioner. Accordingly, prayed to pass appropriate orders. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in fact, the respondent Nos. 10 to 14 interfered and encroached the petitioner’s land by colluding with the Forest and Revenue Officials and tried to cut the teak wood trees and other trees for their wrongful gain. He further contended that the petitioner applied for pattadar pass books and title deed, so far they have not issued. In the said circumstances, if the authorities dispossess, the petitioner’s right will be affected. 4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleaders appearing for the respective departments, on counter contended that the petitioner is not having any right or title over the subject property. In fact the petitioner never made any application seeking pattadar pass book and no material has been placed on record in support of his claim. Further, as there are civil disputes between the petitioner and some third parties, the property has been kept under the dispute register. This Court cannot adjudicate disputed facts under Article 226 of the Constitution. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. Perused the record and considered the submissions. 6. The petitioner is claiming the subject property from his father and there is no piece of material/evidence placed on record to show that the property belongs to the petitioner. The contention of the petitioner is that he made an application to the respondent authorities for issuance of pattadar pass book and the same is pending consideration. But, he did not place any material to the said effect and the pleadings are not clear as to what steps he has taken. The record indicates that there are some disputes between the petitioner and some third parties, when the respondents have categorically denied the right and possession of the petitioner as rightly contended by the learned Assistant Government Pleaders, this Court cannot entertain disputed facts. If at all the petitioner has any grievance, he can avail other alternate remedies before the appropriate forum. In view of the said circumstances, the writ petition is misconceived, devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 3rd January, 2025 TJN 203 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 5239/2022 Dated:03.01.2025 TJN