APHC010281792026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] THURSDAY,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 14644/2026 Between: 1. THAMMISETTI CHINNAMMAI,, W/O. VENKATESWARLU, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCC- AGRICULTURE COOLIE, RIO. D. NO. 10- 10-1, SANAMPUDI ROAD, BALAYOGINAGAR, SRIGARAYAKONDA VILLAGE AND MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT - 523101. 2. THAMMISETTI SUBRAHMANYAM,, S/O. T. LATE RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCC- AGRICULTURE COOLIE, RIO. D. NO. 10- 10-1, SANAMPUDI ROAD, BALAYOGINAGAR, SRIGARAYAKONDA VILLAGE AND MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT - 523101. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.-522238 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.- 523001 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.-522301 4. THE TAHSILDAR, SINGARAYAKONDA MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.-523101 5. THE VILLAGE REVENUE OFFICER, SINGARAYAKONDA MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.-523101 2 6. THE VILLAGE REVENUE INSPECTOR, SINGARAYAKONDA MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.-523101 7. KUNCHALA RATHNAMMA, W/O. TIRUPATAIAH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, RIO. SANAMPUDI ROAD, OPP. GURUKULAPATASALA, SRIGARAYAKONDA VILLAGE AND MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.-523101 8. KUNCHALA THIRUPATHAMMA, W/O. KUNCHALA SUBBA RAO, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/O. SANAMPUDI ROAD, OPP. GURUKULAPATASALA, SRIGARAYAKONDA VILLAGE AND MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.-523101 ...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 tomay be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of mandamus declaring the impugned endorsement vide RCB/134/2024 dt. 12.03.2026 issued by the 4th respondent in respect of the land of the petitioners being an extent of Ac.1.42 cents in Sy.No.667/3 (belongs to 1st petitioner) and being an extent of Ac.1.41 Sy.No.667/3 (belongs to 2nd petitioner) total admeasuring cents in Ac.2.83 cents situated at Somarajupalli Village and Mandal, Prakasam District is as illegal, arbitrary, violation of article 14, 21 and 300A of the constitution of India and besides being violation of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the same and to pass such 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 may be pleased to direct the 4th respondent not to dispossess the petitioners from the agricultural land of the petitioners being an extent of Ac.1.42 cents in Sy.No.667/3 (belongs to 1st petitioner) and being an extent of Ac.1.41 Sy.No.667/3 (belongs to 2nd petitioner) total admeasuring cents in Ac.2.83 cents situated at Somarajupalli Village and Mandal, Prakasam District by suspending the impugned endorsement vide RCB/134/2024 dt. 12.03.2026 pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass such Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. R SUJAN KUMAR 3 Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER: The Writ Petition has been filed for the following relief: “…to issue an order, writ or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the impugned endorsement vide RCB/134/2024 dated 12.03.2026 issued by the 4threspondent in respect of the land of the petitioners being an extent of Ac.1.42 cents in Sy.No.667/3 (belongs to 1stpetitioner) and being an extent of Ac.1.41 in Sy.No.667/3 (belongs to 2ndpetitioner) total admeasuring cents in Ac.2.83 cents situated at Somarajupalli Village and Mandal, Prakasam District is as illegal, arbitrary, violation of article 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and besides being violation of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the same, and pass such other order or orders....” 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue Department. 3. Sri Sujan Kumar Revoori, learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that even though the Writ Petition i.e., W.P.No.24384 of 2024 is filed and an order of status-quo was granted on 24.10.2024, the respondents issued an endorsement dated 12.03.2026 illegally and without following principles of natural justice. 4. Sri T.Sanjeev Rao, learned Assistant Government Pleader, on written instructions, submits that the subject land is not under agricultural cultivation and it has been converted into residential settlement containing unauthorized houses and shops raised through encroachment. The claim of the Petitioners is false, they have suppressed the material fact, the Government resumed the land on 11.07.1994. The Appellate Authority also issued an order on 4 31.03.2025 declaring documents of the Petitioners are fake and fabricated. It is further submitted that the impugned endorsement dated 12.03.2026 does not contain any order of eviction or dispossession. It specifically states that the Writ Petition is pending, wherein, Status-quo was granted and in operation, any further action will be subject to the outcome of the Writ Petition. As such the Writ Petition is premature and urged to dismiss the Writ Petition. 5. Indeed Respondent No.4 has issued an endorsement dated 12.03.2026 in RCB/134/2024, wherein, referred about the Status-quo order passed by this Court in W.P.No.24384 of 2024 and informed that further action would be taken pursuant to the direction given by this Court. In the endorsement, respondent No.4 has clearly mentioned about the subject factual aspects. It appears that one Tammisetti Bangaramma wife of Chinna Venkayya has submitted PGRS complaint requesting to resolve the disputes among the family members and confer rights over the family property. 6. In that regard, an enquiry was conducted by Respondent No.4 as per the direction of Respondent No.2 and issued an endorsement. Of course, Respondent No.4 has mentioned in his endorsement that the DKT Patta was granted to Tammisetti Bangaramma, but it was cancelled earlier and her daughters Kunchala Rathamma and Kunchala Tirupatamma are presently residing in the houses without any legal rights and they are in unauthorized occupation. It is also found that DKT pattas alleged to have been submitted by Tammisetti Chinnammai and Tammisetti Subrahmanyam, who are petitioners herein are also found fault and in that regard action was also sought for. 5 7. Eventually, Respondent No.4 mentioned in the endorsement that there was a status-quo order granted by this Court in W.P.No.24384 of 2024 and awaiting final decision of this Court. In the impugned endorsement dated 12.03.2026 there was no order passed by Respondent No.4 that the subject land shall be evicted by the Petitioners. As rightly submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, the Writ Petition is premature one. 8. Therefore, the Writ Petition is disposed of, requiring Respondent No.4 to await orders of this Court in W.P.No.24383 of 2024, wherein status-quo orders have been passed by this Court. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ Dr.Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 21.05.2026 TPS/BSP 6 15 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 14644 of 2026 Date: 21.05.2026 TPS/BSP