APHC010089532026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] TUESDAY,THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 5969/2026 Between: 1. ONTUBU SAMUEL, S/O LATE PANDANNA, AGED 62 YEARS, OCC CONTRACT WORKS, R/O GUDA VILLAGE AND PANCHAYAT, HUKUMPETA MANDAL, ALLURI SEETHARAMA RAJU DISTRICT (ERSTWHILE VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT). ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TRIBAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 522 238 2. THE COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, ALLURI SEETHARAMA RAJU DISTRICT, (ERSTWHILE VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT).530 011 3. THE ADDITIONAL AGENT TO GOVERNMENTCUM PROJECT OFFICER, ITDA, PADERU, ALLURI SEETHARAMA RAJU DISTRICT, (ERSTWHILE VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT).530 011 2 4. THE SUBCOLLECTORCUMAGENCY SUBORDINATE JUDGE, PADERU, ALLURI SEETHARAMA RAJU DISTRICT, (ERSTWHILE VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT).530 011 5. SMT KUDA NEELAKANTAMMA, , W/O MATCHAYYA, AGED 60 YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE, R/O SAMPANGIPUTTU VILLAGE, SOBHAKOTA PANCHAYAT, HUKUMPETA MANDAL, ALLURI SEETHARAMA RAJU DISTRICT, (ERSTWHILE VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT).531 007 ...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 toPleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the proceedings AOS.No.08/1995/SA-A issued by the 4TH respondent thereby granted Status- Quo orders directing the petitioner not to enter and make any constructions or transactions in petitioner's land admeasuring Ac.0.08 cents in Survey No.8/4 situated in Gudivada Village of Paderu Mandal in Alluri Seetharama Raju District (Erstwhile Visakhapatnam District) contrary to the judgment AND decree dt. 20.07.2024 in A.O.S.No.04/2023 passed by the then 4TH respondent and not disposing long pendency of the suit in A.O.S.No.08/1995 filed by the 5TH respondent against the petitioner, as illegal, arbitrary and offends Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently set aside the proceedings dt. 28.09.2024 passed by the 4TH respondent and further direct the respondents not to interfere with petitioner's possession and construction dt. 28.09.2024 in and RCC building in his land admeasuring Ac.0.08 cents in Survey No.8/4 situated in Gudivada Village of Paderu Mandal in Alluri Seetharama Raju District (Erstwhile Visakhapatnam District) and pass 3 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 suspend the proceedings dt. 28.09.2024 in AOS.No.08/1995/SA-A issued by the 4TH respondent and further direct the respondents not to interfere with petitioner’s possession and construction RCC building in his land admeasuring Ac.0.08 cents in Survey No.8/4 situated in Gudivada Village of Paderu Mandal in Alluri Seetharama Raju District (Erstwhile Visakhapatnam District), pending disposal of the main writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SRINIVAS AMBATI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE The Court made the following: 4 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY W.P.No.5969 OF 2026 O R D E R: The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the proceedings dated 28.09.2024 in AOS No.08/1995/SA-A passed by Respondent No.4 granting status quo, contrary to the Judgment and Decree in AOS No.04 of 2023, dated 20.07.2024, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The facts in brief are as follows:- The Petitioner claims to be an absolute possessor and owner of an extent of Ac.0.08 Cents in Sy.No.8/4 situated in Gudivada Village, Paderu Mandal, Alluri Seetharamaraju District (erstwhile Visakhapatnam District). The land was purchased under a registered sale deed dated 07.08.1989, and the permission for registration was sanctioned by the then District Collector, Visakhapatnam, vide Dis.No.2766/91, dated 09.08.1991. Thereafter, the Agency Sub-Registrar, Paderu, had registered the said document on 28.09.1991. 5 3. While so, the Petitioner had filed a suit for Permanent Injunction in AOS.No.08 of 1995 before the Agency Court, Paderu, against the husband of Respondent No.5. It was submitted that Respondent No.5 also filed a suit for Permanent Injunction against the Petitioner, and curiously, the said suit was also numbered as AOS.No.08 of 1995. 4. Subsequently, AOS.No.04 of 2023 was filed against the Petitioner by J. Rama Rao and another for declaration of title over the schedule property. The said suit was disposed of, with the following directions as extracted under:- <18. This court passed the following judgement as per the arguments and evidences placed before this court by the learned counsels of plaintiffs and defendant: i. The schedule property is belongs to defendant i.e., Ontubu Samuel S/o (late) Pandanna, r/o Guda Village, Hukumpeta Mandal of Alluri Sitharama Raju District. ii. The previously issued IA.No.01/2023 in AOS.No.04/2023 stands cancelled and permanent injunction is hereby issued in favour of the defendant Ontubu Samuel S/o (late) Pandanna, r/o Guda Village, Hukumpeta Mandal of Alluri Sitharama Raju District over the suit schedule property. iii. The Plaintiffs are hereby strictly directed to not interfere in the peaceful possession of the defendant over the suit schedule property present in Sy.No.8-4D measuring an extent of Ac.0.08cts of Gudivada Village of Paderu Mandal.= <19. In the result, this petition is disposed off from this court with no costs=. 6 5. In the light of the Judgment and Decree in AOS.No.04 of 2023, the Petitioner filed a memo seeking withdrawal of his suit, i.e., AOS.No.08 of 1995, and the Agency Subordinate Judge/Sub-Collector, Paderu, had passed orders permitting the Petitioner to withdraw AOS.No.08 of 1995, and it was withdrawn on 11.11.2025. 6. However, the suit filed by the Respondent No.5 with the same number is still pending, and an interim order was passed on 28.09.2024, directing the status quo to be maintained. Hence, the present Writ Petition is filed. 7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner on instructions, submits that, as the suit is of the year 1995, it would suffice for the present if the suit is directed to be disposed of as expeditiously as possible. Learned Assistant Government Pleader would submit that appropriate instructions may be given for expeditious disposal of AOS.No.08 of 1995. 8. Heard the respective counsel. 7 9. This Court after hearing the learned counsel for the Petitioner is perplexed as to how the same suit number i.e., AOS.No.08 of 1995 is given to the suit filed by the Petitioner as well as by the Respondent No.5. The instructions issued to the learned Government Pleader also appears to be a case of mistaken identity. 10. Be that as it may, considering the fact that the suit filed by Respondent No.5 with the same number is pending as on date and the impugned interim order was passed, and taking note of the submissions of learned counsel appearing on both sides, this Writ Petition is disposed of, with the following directions:- (i) The Respondent No.4 is directed to dispose of the suit i.e., AOS.No.08 of 1995 filed by Respondent No.5, within a period of four (04) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (ii) There shall be no order as to costs. 8 As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Petition shall stand closed. __________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 03.03.2026 chs 9 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY 161 WRIT PETITION NO:5969/2026 Dt. 03.03.2026 chs