APHC010220392026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] TUESDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 11429/2026 Between: 1. S RENUKA, W/O. M. PRAKASH, D/O. SIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE, R/O. D.NO.4-116, HBN COLONY, YARRAGUNTAHALLI, H/O. NIDRAGATTA, AMARAPURAM MANDAL, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT - 515281. 2. S. LAXMAKKA,, W/O. SIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE, R/O. D.NO.4-116, HBN COLONY, YARRAGUNTAHALLI, H/O. NIDRAGATTA, AMARAPURAM MANDAL, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT - 515281. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS AT VELAGAPUDI,AMARAVATHI- 522237. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT., AT PUTTAPARTHI, ERSTWHILE ANANTAPUR DISTRICT - 515134. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MADAKASIRA DIVISION, MADAKASIRA, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICTERSTWHILE ANANTAPUR DISTRICT - 515301. Page 2 of 6 4. THE TAHSILDAR, AMARAPURAM MANDAL, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE ANANTAPUR DISTRICT - 515281. 5. THE NIDRAGATTA GRAMA PANCHYAT, NIDRAGATTA VILLAGE, AMARAPURAM MANDAL, SRI SATHYA SAI DISTRICT ERSTWHILE ANANTAPUR DISTRICT - 51586 REPRESENTED BY ITS PANCHAYAT SECRETARY. ...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 an order, writ or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning the action of the respondents in seeking dispossession of the petitioners from their house property in an extent of Ac.0.02 cents in Sy.No.47-2B bounded by East Road, West Vacant Land, North Lakshmakka House, South Road and admeasuring an extent of 50 X 50 in Sy.No.47-2B bounded by East Road, West Road, North Road, South Vacant Place situated at Yarraguntahalli, H/o. Nidragatta, Amarapuram Mandal, Sri Sathya Sai District Erstwhile Anantapur District without following any procedure under law and without issuing any notice or any proceedings as illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and violative of Article 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioners from the above said property without following due process of law and pass such other order or orders that the Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 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 to direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioners from their house property in an extent of Ac.0.02 cents in Sy.No.47-2B bounded by East;Road, West; Vacant Land, North: Lakshmakka House, South: Road and admeasuring an extent of 50 X 50 in Sy.No.47-2B bounded by East: Road, West: Road, North: Road, South: Vacant Place situated at Yarraguntahalli, H/o. Nidragatta, Amarapuram Mandal, Sri Sathya Sai District Erstwhile Anantapur District, pending disposal of writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. P NARAHARI BABU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 2. GP FOR REVENUE 3. Mattegunta.Sudhir,Standing Counsel For Z.P.Ps,M.P.Ps,Gram Panchayats The Court made the following: ::ORDER:: Heard Sri P. Narahari Babu, learned counsel for the petitioners; Sri P.Rajesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development, for respondent No.1; Ms. P. Usha, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, for respondents 2 to 4, and Ms. Kavitha, learned counsel representing Sri M. Sudhir, learned standing counsel for respondent No.5. 2. The petitioners, daughter and mother respectively, filed the above writ petition, complaining of the interference of respondents 4 and 5, with an extent of Ac.0-02 cents, each in survey No.47-2B, Yarraguntahalli, H/o Nidragatta, Amarapuram Mandal, Sri Sathya Sai District, without following the due process of law. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that petitioner No.2 constructed a house in her land admeasuring Ac.0-02 cents in survey No.47- 2B, Yarraguntahalli, H/o Nidragatta, Amarapuram Mandal, Sri Sathya Sai District, and has been paying the taxes. Respondent No.4-Tahsildar issued a possession certificate to petitioner No.2 vide L.Dis No.21/2006 dated 05.12.2006 (Ex.P2) in respect of land admeasuring 50 x 50. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that respondent No.4 also issued a possession certificate to petitioner No.1 vide L.P.No.16/17/2016 dated 15.10.2016 (Ex.P1) in respect of Ac.00-02 cents in the same survey number, and she is yet to construct a house. While so, respondents 4 and 5, without issuing any notice, are attempting to dispossess the petitioners from their respective properties. 5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue submitted the instructions of Tahsildar, respondent No.4. 6. As seen from the instructions of respondent No.4, the authority is disputing the genuineness of Exs.P1 and P2. It was mentioned that the then Tahsildar granted house site pattas to 92 beneficiaries as per HSRDIS No.20/2006 dated 05.12.2006, and without cancelling the house site pattas by following due process of law, granting of possession certificates again does not arise. As seen from the instructions, neither respondent No.4 nor the staff attempted to dispossess the petitioners. 7. Learned counsel for respondent No.5 submitted the instructions of the Panchayat Secretary of respondent No.5. 8. A perusal of the instructions would disclose that respondent No.5 is not interfering with the house situated in survey No.47-2B, Nidragatta Village and the authority will follow the due process of law, if required. 9. Thus, as seen from the instructions furnished by respondent No.4, there is a dispute regarding the genuineness of Exs.P1 and P2. However, without touching said aspect, given the instructions of Panchayat Secretary of respondent No.5, this writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage with the consent of learned counsel on either side, directing respondents 4 and 5 not to interfere with the house bearing D.No.4-166 (as per house tax receipt door number is 4-116), constructed by petitioner No.2 in the aforementioned land, without following due process of law. 10. In respect of Ex.P1 of petitioner No.1, respondent No.4-Tahsildar is at liberty to decide the genuineness of the patta. However, respondents 4 and 5 shall not interfere with or dispossess petitioner No.1 from Ac.0-02 cents in the aforementioned survey number, without following due process of law. No costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date: 05.05.2026 IKN THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI W.P.No.11429 of 2026 Date: 05.05.2026 IKN