APHC010037172020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 2245 Between: 1. CHADALAWADA BABY,, W/O. CHADALAWADA NUKARAJU, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, RIO. D. NO. 21 PEDDAPURAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, PEDDAPURAM MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 3. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PEDDAPURAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. N PAVAN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME (AP) 2. GP FOR REVENUE IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 2245 OF 2020 CHADALAWADA BABY,, W/O. CHADALAWADA NUKARAJU, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, RIO. D. NO. 21-2-58/16, RAJEEV COLONY, PEDDAPURAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR. THE TAHSILDAR, PEDDAPURAM MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PEDDAPURAM, EAST GODAVARI ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: Counsel for the Respondent(S): IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3458] THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA CHADALAWADA BABY,, W/O. CHADALAWADA NUKARAJU, AGED 58/16, RAJEEV COLONY, ...PETITIONER THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, THE TAHSILDAR, PEDDAPURAM MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PEDDAPURAM, EAST GODAVARI ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 The Court made the following order: Heard Sri N.Pavan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents. 2. The grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition is that the house property bearing plot No.38 an extent of Ac.0.2½ cents situated in Sy.No.182/2, Peddapuram Village and Mandal East Godavari District, belonging to the petitioner has been unauthorizedly occupied by one Smt. Potla Balasaraswathi Pillai, and has not vacated the same. In this connection, the petitioner approached the 2nd respondent, who in turn vide proceedings dated 12.11.2019 directed the 3rd respondent to enquire into the issue and ensure that possession of the property is delivered to the petitioner. 3. Since the said order has not been complied with, alleging non- compliance of the proceedings dated 12.11.2019, the instant writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the 3rd respondent. 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents submits that, pursuant to the proceedings of the Tahsildar dated 12.11.2019, the 3rd respondent passed orders informing the petitioner that the dispute between the parties is civil in nature, hence matter may be settled before the competent Civil Court. 5. Thus, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue contends that despite passing of the appropriate consequential orders, the petitioner 3 has yet approached this Court by way of the instant writ petition, alleging non- compliance. 6. Today, when the matter was taken up for consideration, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue has placed before the Court a copy of the latest written instructions received from the 2nd respondent vide letter dated 11.02.2026. A perusal of the same would reflect that the 2nd respondent had issued notice to the said Smt. Potla Balasaraswathi Pillai pursuant to the complaint made by the petitioner. Apart from addressing a letter to the 3rd respondent, the 2nd respondent also addressed a letter to Smt. Potla Balasaraswathi Pillai. 7. Pursuant to the same, the Mandal Revenue Inspector, Peddapuram, conducted an enquiry and submitted a report dated 11.02.2026 stating that the petitioner had sold the property in Sy.No.182/2 of Peddapuram Town and Mandal to Smt. Potla Balasaraswathi Pillai. It is further stated that the said transaction is in violation of the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 and appropriate action would be taken after issuing notices to both the petitioner and Smt. Potla Balasaraswathi Pillai. 8. Having regard to the above, this Court is of the view that the relief sought by the petitioner in the writ petition does not merit consideration. However, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, since action has already been initiated by the respondents on the application of the petitioner 4 and the respondents are directed to pass appropriate orders on the application filed by the petitioner on 30.09.2019 through Spandana Portal, in accordance with law. 9. With the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA Date: 19.02.2026 BSK 5 16 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 2245 OF 2020 Date: 19.02.2026 BSK