APHC010103772020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH THURSDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA Writ Petition Nos: 6296, 6298, 6300, 6302 & 6305 of 2020 WRIT PETITION NO: 6296/2020 Between: K. Muni Krishnaiah, The State of Andhra Pradesh and others WRIT PETITION NO: 6298/2020 Between: A.Ramesh The State of Andhra Pradesh and others WRIT PETITION NO: 6300/2020 Between: I.Nagaraju and others The State of Andhra Pradesh and others WRIT PETITION NO: 6302/2020 Between: K. Pedda Krishnaiah, The State of Andhra Pradesh and others IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA Writ Petition Nos: 6296, 6298, 6300, 6302 & 6305 of 2020 WRIT PETITION NO: 6296/2020 ...Petitioner AND The State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...Respondents 6298/2020 ...Petitioner AND The State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...Respondents WRIT PETITION NO: 6300/2020 ...Petitioners AND The State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...Respondents 6302/2020 ...Petitioner AND The State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...Respondents IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3458] HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA Writ Petition Nos: 6296, 6298, 6300, 6302 & 6305 of 2020 ...Petitioner ...Respondents ...Petitioner ...Respondents ...Petitioners ...Respondents ...Petitioner ...Respondents 2 WRIT PETITION NO: 6305/2020 Between: K.Venkatesu, ...Petitioner AND The State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P.S.P.Suresh Kumar Counsel for the Respondents: 1. GP for Revenue (AP) The Court made the following common order: Since the issued involved in these writ petitions are one and the same, they are heard and disposed of by way of common order. 2. Heard Sri Bhuvanagiri Subramanya Kumar, learned counsel representing Sri P.S.P.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents. 3. The writ petition is filed challenging the action of the respondents' trying to dispossess the petitioner and interfere with their possession of the subject land. The petitioner contends that they were issued a D-Form Patta in the year 1981, and after the lifetime of their father, they have succeeded to the property. Since then the petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of the property. 4. In support of this contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the 1B Adangal. The learned counsel further submits that the revenue 3 authorities have recognized the petitioner's title and possession and issued pattadar pass book and title deeds, and mutated the name of the petitioner in the revenue records. 5. In light of these facts, the learned counsel contends that the respondents' attempt to dispossess the petitioner is without authority of law and the same is unsustainable. 6. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue has placed on record a copy of the written instructions received from the 4th respondent-Tahsildar dated 05.01.2024, stating that the patta was granted in favor of the petitioner's father vide proceedings Roc.No.B3/3838 dated 01.12.1981 and the same was relinquished by the assignees. Furthermore, it is stated that there is no proposal for issuance of subject lands in favor of the allotted house site pattas in respect of the subject lands. It is also stated that the subject lands are vacant, and therefore, the question of dispossession does not arise. 7. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in possession of the land. 8. Considered the rival submissions, the petitioner in support of his contention relies on the following documents: 1. D-Form patta issued in favor of the petitioner's father. 2. Pattadar pass books issued in favor of the petitioner's father, along with corresponding entries in the revenue records. 4 3. Form 1-B Adangals dated 10.02.2020 and 19.09.2019. 9. In view of the above, the possession of the petitioner cannot be disturbed without due authority of law. Considering the Tahsildar's instructions dated 05.01.2025, stating that there are currently no proposals for issuance of house site pattas with respect to the subject land, this Court is of the view that the petitioner shall not be dispossessed from the subject land without following due process of law. 10. The respondents are at liberty to proceed in accordance with law. If it is found that the possession of the petitioner is unauthorized. The same shall be done only after issuing notice to the petitioner. 11. Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed. _______________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA Date: 09.01.2025 BSK 5 190 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA Writ Petition Nos: 6296, 6298, 6300, 6302 & 6305 of 2020 Date: 09.01.2025 BSK