1 (CMR,J & GTK,J W.A.No.153 of 2026) APHC010061112026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3558] WEDNESDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA WRIT APPEAL NO: 153/2026 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent above-named Appellant begs to present this Memorandum of Writ Appeal against the Judgment passed in WP No. 24623 of 2025, dated 12.09.2025passed by learned single Judge,High Court of Andhra Pradeshat Amaravathi for the following grounds among other Between: 1. ILLURI LAKKANNA, S/O. LATE BASANNA, AGED 64 YEARS,R/O. D.NO. 4-38-12A, SC COLONY, SEETHARAMPALLI VILLAGE,CHANDRAKALA POST, DHARMAVARAM MANDAL,SRI SATYA SAL DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...APPELLANT AND 1. P NARAMMA, W/O. P. VENKATA RAMUDU, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE, RIO. D.NO. 12-545, KURUBA STREET, DHARMAVARAM, SRI SATYA SAL DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. RESPONDENT/PETITIONER 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI. 3. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SRI SATYA ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. - 2 (CMR,J & GTK,J W.A.No.153 of 2026) R I R. -J SAI DISTRICT, PUTTAPARTHY, ERSTWHILE 4. 4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, DHARMAVARAM, SRI SATYA SAL DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. , 5- S--B , 5. THE TAHSILDAR, DHARMAVARAM MANDAL, SRI SATYA SAL DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): IA NO: 1 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to dispense with Xerox Copy of the order dated 12.09.2025 passed in W.P. No. 24623 of 2025, in the above Writ Appeal and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to suspend the orders passed in W.P.No.24623 of 2025dated 12.09.2025 duly directing the authorities to follow the procedure established by the law in dispossessing the appellant from his land and pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. JADA SRAVAN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. M K RAJ KUMAR The Court made the following: 3 (CMR,J & GTK,J W.A.No.153 of 2026) J U D G M E N T : (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy) This Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, is filed aggrieved by the order dated 12.09.2025 passed in W.P.No.24623 of 2025 by the learned single Judge, whereby the writ petition was disposed of, with a direction to the respondents therein not to interfere with the possession of the writ petitioner in respect of the subject property without following the due process of law. 2. Heard Mr. Karthik Shah, learned counsel for the writ appellant, Mr. M.K.Raj Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.1 herein and learned Government Pleader for Revenue for official respondent Nos. 2 to 5 herein. 3. The appellant is the respondent No.5 and respondent Nos.1 to 4 are the official respondents in W.P.No.24623 of 2025 before the learned single Judge. 4. The writ petitioner claims to be in possession of the subject property which is in an extent of Ac.0-62 cents covered by Survey No. 66-1D situated in Regatipalli Village, Dharmavaram Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District. It is alleged that without issuing any notice and without following the due process of law as contemplated under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Book Act,1971, the respondents are interfering with the peaceful possession of the writ petitioner in respect of the 4 (CMR,J & GTK,J W.A.No.153 of 2026) subject property. Therefore, the writ petitioner has filed the writ petition to declare the said action on the part of the respondents in interfering with his possession in respect of the said land without following due process of law, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law, and prayed to restrain the respondents from interfering with the petitioner’s peaceful possession of the subject property. 5. The learned single Judge, without issuing any notice either to official respondent Nos.1 to 4 or the unofficial respondent No.5, disposed of the writ petition at the admission stage itself, with a direction to the respondents not to interfere with the possession of writ petitioner in respect of the subject property without following due process of law. 6. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 12.09.2025, the respondent No.5, who is an unofficial respondent, preferred the present writ appeal. It is his case that a part of the subject land is being used by his family members as a burial ground and tombs of his predecessors exist on the said land. He contends that, without issuing any notice to him and without affording him any opportunity of hearing that the impugned order was passed. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant/respondent No.5 that severe allegations are made against the writ petitioner in the writ petition and that, without ordering any notice to him, the writ petition was disposed of by passing an order adverse to him. 5 (CMR,J & GTK,J W.A.No.153 of 2026) 7. As noticed supra, the writ petition was disposed of at the stage of admission itself, without ordering notice to the unofficial respondent No.5, and without hearing him before passing the impugned order. Since, certain allegations were made against respondent No.5 in the writ petition, and when he claims to be in possession of a part of the subject land, using the same as a burial ground of his family members, this court is of the considered view that an opportunity of hearing is to be afforded to him to enable to him to put forward his case. 8. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, we are of the considered view that it is appropriate to remand the matter to the learned single Judge for fresh disposal of the writ petition, in accordance with law, after issuing notice to the appellant/5th respondent and after affording him an opportunity of hearing. It is essential to issue notice to him and to provide him an opportunity of hearing to comply with the principles of natural justice. 9. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is allowed setting aside the impugned order dated 12.09.2025 passed in W.P.No.24623 of 2025. The writ petition is remanded to the court of the learned single Judge for fresh disposal on merits, in accordance with law, after issuing notice to the appellant/ respondent No.5 and after affording him an opportunity of hearing. However, the official respondents Nos.2 to 5 herein shall not dispossess the 6 (CMR,J & GTK,J W.A.No.153 of 2026) appellant/respondent No.5 from the subject land in question tlil the writ petition is disposed of by the learned Single Judge. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY _____________________________ JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA Date: 18.02.2026 RPD. 7 (CMR,J & GTK,J W.A.No.153 of 2026) 119 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA (ALLOWED) WRIT APPEAL NO: 153 of 2026 Date : 18.02.2026. RPD. 8 (CMR,J & GTK,J W.A.No.153 of 2026)