APHC010072192019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3459] MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION No.3229/2019 Between: 1. B. RAJESWARI, W/O BANDARU RAMA KRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO. 1-152, GOLLALAPALEM, SABBAVARAM MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 2. ADIVARAPU RAMANAMMA, W/O A. SANYASI RAO, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO. 1-179, GOLLALLAPALEM. SABBAVARAM MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 3. ADARI SRINIVASA RAO, S/O ADARI KOTESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDENT OF GOLLALAPALEM, SABBAVARAM MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 4. KOMMU SANYASAMMA, W/O KOMMU APPALANAIDU, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO. 1- 118, GOLLALAPALEM, SABBAVARAM MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 5. INDUGUBILLI LAXMI, W/O INDUGUBILLI RAMUDU, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO. 1-139 GOLLALAPALEM, SABBAVARAM MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 6. KOMMU NOOKALAMMA, W/O KOMMU APPANA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO. 1-170, GOLLALAPALEM, SABBAVARAM MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 7. SIRISAVALLI NAGAMANI, W/O SIRISAVALLI RAMANA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO. 1- 124, GOPILAPALEM. 8. KOMMU VARALAKSHMI, W/O KOMMU PYDI RAJU, AGED ABOUT 44YEARS, RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO. 1-161, GOLLALAPALEM, SABBAVARAM MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 9. DASARI NAGA RAJU, S/O DASARI VENKATA SWAMY, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, RESIDENT OF GOLLALAPALEM, SABBAVARAM MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 10. AMARAPINNI PYDAMMA, W/O AMARAPINNI PYDIBABU, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, RESIDENT OF GOLLALAPALEM, SABBAVARAM MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 11. SALEPU ACHIYAMMA, SALAPU APPALANAIDU, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, RESIDENT OF GOLLALAPALEM, SABBAVARAM MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 12. GANTLA RAMU, W/O GANTLA DEMUDU, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO. 1-34, RESIDENT OF GOLLALAPALEM, SABBAVARAM MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDING, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, SABBAVARAM MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue any appropriate Writ, Order or Direction preferably a Writ in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd and 3rd respondent authorities in threatening to dispossess the petitioners from the House sites allotted by the 3rd respondent individually of an extent of 0.60 square yards, situated in Survey No. 252/6 of Gollalapalem Village, Sabbavaram Mandel, Visakhapatnam District, as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14 and 300 A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents authorities not to dispossess the petitioners from the House sites without following due process of law. IA NO: 1 OF 2019 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 to direct the 2nd and 3rd respondents authorities not to dispossess the petitioners from the House sites allotted by the 3rd respondent individually of an extent of 0.60 square yards situated in Survey No. 252/6 of Gollalapalem Village, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, pending disposal of the Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. Y SUDHAKAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR ASSIGNMENT (AP) 2. GP FOR REVENUE (AP) The Court made the following ORDER: No representation for the petitioners. 2. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, on the written instructions from the 3rd respondent – Tahsildar, Sabbavaram, submitted that the genuineness of the alleged certificates of allotment of house sites granted to the petitioners will be examined with reference to the records available in their office. 3. He further submitted that, if the land is found to be government property or if the certificates are found to be invalid, further action will be taken by following due process of law as prescribed under the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905. 4. In view of this submission, without going into other aspects, this Court finds it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition by making the interim order, dated 12.03.2019, absolute. 5. It is needless to say that the respondent authorities are at liberty to follow due process of law, if they intend to take over the lands of the petitioners for any purpose. 6. Accordingly, with the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM Date:16.03.2026 DSH