APHC010451072019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA WRIT PETITION No: Between: 1. K. SUBRAMANYAM, S/O. KADIRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/o. RAMAPURAM VILLAGE, KOLAMADUGU, SHANTHIPURAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 2. JANARDHAN, S/o. SESHAYYA NAYUDU, AGED R/O. RAMAPURAM VILLAGE, KOLAMADUGU, SHANTHIPURAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 3. P. MANJULA, W/o. P. GAJENDRA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/o.SHANTHIMADUGU, KOLAMADUGU MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 4. KARTHIGA.R, W/o. D. VAMSI, AGED ABOUT GANDLA STREET, KUPPAM, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 5. A. SHANKARAPPA, S/ R/O. AMMAVARIPETA VILLAGE, SHANTHIPURAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA WRIT PETITION No: 21604 of 2019 K. SUBRAMANYAM, S/O. KADIRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/o. RAMAPURAM VILLAGE, KOLAMADUGU, SHANTHIPURAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. JANARDHAN, S/o. SESHAYYA NAYUDU, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O. RAMAPURAM VILLAGE, KOLAMADUGU, SHANTHIPURAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. P. MANJULA, W/o. P. GAJENDRA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/o.SHANTHIMADUGU, KOLAMADUGU MANDAL, CHITTOOR . D. VAMSI, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/O. 4 GANDLA STREET, KUPPAM, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. A. SHANKARAPPA, S/o. A. VENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O. AMMAVARIPETA VILLAGE, SHANTHIPURAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3209] THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JANUARY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA K. SUBRAMANYAM, S/O. KADIRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/o. RAMAPURAM VILLAGE, KOLAMADUGU, SHANTHIPURAM ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O. RAMAPURAM VILLAGE, KOLAMADUGU, SHANTHIPURAM P. MANJULA, W/o. P. GAJENDRA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/o.SHANTHIMADUGU, KOLAMADUGU MANDAL, CHITTOOR 28 YEARS, R/O. 4-40/1, . A. VENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O. AMMAVARIPETA VILLAGE, SHANTHIPURAM MANDAL, ...PETITIONER(S) REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, 2 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CHITTOOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER/SUB COLLECTOR, MADANAPALLI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, SHANTHIPURAM, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 5. ANDHRA PRADESH STATE INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUTURE CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, ANDHRA PRADESH STATE, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR. 6. AZISTA INDUSTRIES LTD, REP. BY ITS MANAGER SRI KESAVA REDDY, AMMAVARIPETA PLANT, SHANTHIPURAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. Mr.PRAKASH.C Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE (AP) 2. Mr.RAMA CHANDRA RAO GURRAM 3. Mr.O MANOHER REDDY 3 The Court made the following Order: The writ petition is filed seeking to declare the action of the respondents in trying to evict the petitioners from the subject matter lands without following due process of Law and interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same as illegal, arbitrary and for consequential directions. 2. As per the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioners’ case, in brief, is that the lands in question were assigned by granting D-Form Pattas and the 4th respondent issued pattadar pass books and title deeds in respect of the same. While setting out the details of the extents of lands and the survey numbers, they further state that in the year 2002, for the purpose of M/s.Tidel Silk Technology, Hyderabad, the Government sought to acquire the subject matter lands, but due to change of the Government, no action was taken and thereafter in 2017, for the purpose of establishing an Airport, the land in possession of the petitioners was sought to be resumed, but no work was started, except conduct of survey. It is also their case that they are raising seasonal crops like groundnut, jowar, pulses etc., by digging bore-wells and availing electricity supply. While that being the position, without acquiring the subject lands and paying compensation to the petitioners, the respondents demolished a part of the houses constructed by the petitioners and highhandedly sought to evict them from the subject matter lands without issuing any notice or following the due process of law and in the said circumstances, the petitioners approached this Court. 4 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners inter alia submits that the action of the respondent-authorities in trying to dispossess the petitioners from the subject matter lands, which are in their possession is wholly unsustainable as no land acquisition proceedings were initiated under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Rehabilitation & Resettlement Act, 2013. He submits that the material on record i.e., pattadar pass books and the title deeds in respect of the subject matter lands clearly establish that the petitioners have right / interest over the subject matter property and if the same is sought to be utilized for any public purpose, compensation has to be paid to the petitioners as per Law. He submits that earlier proposal for establishing M/s.Tidel Silk Technology Project was dropped and in those circumstances, the revenue authorities addressed communications dated 26.03.2010 and 04.08.2012 (Exs.P2 and P3), from a perusal of which, it is clear that the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration (CCLA) was requested to withdraw the alienation of the subject matter lands, as the requisition company is not willing to establish the unit and reassignment orders were sought. He submits that pending decision by the CCLA, the respondent-authorities had resorted to highhanded action of interfering and dispossessing the petitioners from the subject matter lands without issuing any notice or paying any compensation, which is illegal, arbitrary and also amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. He submits that if the petitioners are dispossessed from the subject matter lands, they will suffer serious prejudice and 5 irreparable loss. Making the said submissions, he seeks to allow the writ petition and grant the reliefs as prayed for. 4. On the other hand, Mr.O.Manohar Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel for the 6th respondent refuting the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners, advanced arguments. Drawing the attention of this Court to the counter-affidavit of the 6th respondent, he submits that pursuant to an application made to the 5th respondent, an extent of Ac.18.16 cents at Industrial Park, Ammavaripeta Village was allotted for the purpose of establishment of dehydrated fruits and vegetables-chips/ingredients unit to the 6th respondent company vide Provisional Allotment Letter dated 02.03.2018. Subsequently, an agreement of sale was entered on 13.04.2018, the possession of the land was handed over to the 6th respondent, it was converted from agriculture to non- agriculture purpose and the local authority, after inspection, issued a No- Objection Certificate for construction of dehydrated fruits and vegetables unit. He also submits that the 6th respondent made an application on 13.12.2018 for permission from the Ground Water Department for extraction of water and the same was granted on 02.01.2019 and further that the 6th respondent had also obtained permission for construction of the building from the District Town and Country Planning Officer, Chittoor. At that stage, the petitioners filed the present writ petition and got the interim orders without disclosing the correct facts. Referring to the averments in Para No.5 of the writ affidavit, he further submits 6 that even as per the petitioners, the lands in question were resumed and the same were allotted to M/s.Tidel Silk Technology Project and in such circumstances, the submission that the petitioners are in possession of the property, much less in the absence of any material to that effect is not sustainable. He further submits that the internal correspondence between the authorities does not confer any right on the petitioners and once the land is resumed in favour of the Government and allotted to the 5th respondent- Corporation, no re-assignment can be made. He also submits that as there is a dispute with regard to the possession of the property, the same cannot be gone into in the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He also submits that the petitioners did not chose to file reply-affidavit to any of the counter-affidavits filed by the respondents and thus, the averments in the counters are deemed to have been admitted. He submits that there are no merits in the writ petition and the same is therefore liable to be dismissed. 5. Mr.K.Arjun Chowdhary, learned Assistant Government Pleader while supporting the arguments advanced by Mr.O.Manohar Reddy made submissions with reference to the averments in the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.4. He submits that the lands in question along with the other lands were identified for industrial development and was resumed vide Proceedings dated 09.01.2003, after cancellation of the pattas. He submits that subsequently the land was alienated to APIIC/5th respondent and the possession was also handed over to it 7 on 04.09.2017 pursuant to the orders of the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.339 dated 27.07.2017. He further submits that thereafter the APIIC allotted the land of an extent of Ac.18.16 cents to the 6th respondent-industry. He also submits that except the 5th petitioner, the others have no locus standi to file the present writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed in the light of the contentions raised in the counter-affidavit. 6. Mr.Ramachandra Rao Gurram, learned counsel appearing on behalf of APIIC made submissions with reference to the averments made in the counter- affidavit of the 5th respondent. While emphasizing that no reply-affidavit was filed by the petitioners, he submits that the APIIC has executed an agreement for sale of land of an extent of Ac.18.16 cents in favour of the 6th respondent on 13.04.2018 and registered the same on 17.04.2018 and handed over the land on 25.05.2018. He further submits that there are no specific orders in favour of the petitioners for reassignment of land and in the absence of the same, and more particularly in view of the alienation made by the 5th respondent by following due procedure, the 6th respondent had undertaken the works for establishing the dehydrated fruits and vegetables unit after obtaining the requisite permissions. Be that as it may. He submits that in view of the interim orders granted by this Court, no further action was taken by the 5th respondent in the matter. He submits that the land in question was sought to be utilized for industrial purpose, 8 beneficial to the public and promotes employment opportunities, and therefore the writ petition may be dismissed. 7. This Court has considered the submissions made and perused the material on record. At the outset, it may be pertinent to note that the D-Form Pattas on the basis of which the writ petitioners claim right over the subject matter land have not been filed. Except the pattadar pass books stated to have been issued in favour of the 1st petitioner, no other material is placed on record by the other petitioners in support of their claim / case in respect of the subject matter lands. Further, nothing is placed on record, which would prima facie support their case set out in the writ petition to the effect that they are in possession of the land in question. The specific contention / objections with regard to the petitioners’ claim over the subject matter lands remained un- rebutted and in the absence of any material which would support their case and the submission that the petitioners are in possession of the lands in question, deserves no consideration. 8. Further, it is the specific case of the respondents that the possession of the subject matter lands was handed over to the 6th respondent. While it is settled law that disputed questions of fact cannot be adjudicated in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in the present case there is no need to go into the said aspect as there is no specific denial to the averments made in the counter-affidavits of the respondents referred to above. According to the 4th 9 respondent, the lands in question were resumed on 09.01.2003 from the original assignees, on the premise that the conditions of grant were violated. Though no such proceedings were filed along with the counter-affidavit, the petitioners did not chose to file reply-affidavit contradicting the specific assertions in the counter- affidavit and thus the same amounts to admission. No doubt at the relevant point of time some proposals were made for reassignment of lands as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners. However, a perusal of the said proposals would indicate that the land was resumed and available for allotment / reassignment to eligible landless poor persons. But the Government in the light of the letter dated 15.06.2017 addressed by the Special Chief Secretary & Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Andhra Pradesh and the recommendation of the A.P.Land Management Authority (APLMA), issued orders vide G.O.Ms.No.339 dated 27.07.2017 for alienation of land of an extent of Ac.21.20 cents in Survey No.35/11, 15 etc., of Ammavaripeta Village in favour of APIIC for establishment of dehydrated fruits and vegetables processing unit. It appears that subsequently the APIIC/5th respondent made provisional allotment of plot admeasuring Ac.18.16 cents on outright sale basis to the 6th respondent vide Provisional allotment letter dated 02.03.2018 and handed over the land to it. Though, it is not clear from the counter-affidavit of the 6th respondent as to the circumstances under which the land alienated to APIIC by the Government was sought to be sold to the 6th respondent, in the absence of any contentions raised by the petitioners, much less by filing a reply-affidavit, the same may not be gone 10 into in detail. Non-filing of the reply-affidavit to the counter-affidavits of the respondents is fatal to the case of the petitioners and the specific assertions made in the counter-affidavits are deemed to have been admitted. 9. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners failed to make out a case for granting reliefs in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, all pending applications shall stand dismissed. __________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA BLV Dt. 22.01.2026. 11 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA W.P.No.21604 of 2019 Date: 22.01.2026 BLV