APHC010658602025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3233] MONDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN WRIT PETITION NO: 34072/2025 Between: 1. BALIREDDY SURIBABU, S/O.LATE BALIREDDY SANYASI, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, R/O. H. NO. 11-90, NAKKAVANIPALEM, PEDAMUSIDIVADA VILLAGE, PARAVADA MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 2. BALIREDDY SANKAR DEMUDU,, S/O. BALIREDDY SURIBABU, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/O. H. NO. 11-90, NAKKAVANIPALEM, PEDAMUSIDIVADA VILLAGE, PARAVADA MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 3. THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY, LAND POOLING SCHEME, SABAVARAM AND SPL. DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LA) API 1C, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 5. THE TAHSILDAR, SABBAVARAM MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 2 6. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, SABBAVARAM POLICE STATION, SABBAVARAM MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 7. BALIREDDY CHINA THALLI, W/O. APPALANAIDU, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/O. H. NO. 8-36, WARD NO. 12 NAKKAVANIPALEM, PEDAMUSIDIVADA VILLAGE, PARAVADA MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 8. BALIREDDY SATYANARAYANA, S/O. APPALANAIDU, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/O. H. NO. 8-36, WARD NO.L NAKKAVANIPALEM, PEDAMUSIDIVADA VILLAGE, PARAVADA MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT 9. BALIREDDY PRASAD, S/O. APPALANAIDU, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/O. H. NO. 8-36, WARD NO. 12 NAKKAVANIPALEM, PEDAMUSIDIVADA VILLAGE, PARAVADA 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 topleased to issue a writ or orders or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action on part of the Respondent No. 2 to 6 in failure to consider the Petitioners representation, dated 26.09.2025 praying protection of Petitioners life, property, and peaceful possession under the provisions of the maintenance and welfare of parents and senior citizens Act, 2007 is illegal, irregular and unjust and violation of article 14 and 21 of the constitutionof India, violation the rights of senior citizens over their property and consequently direct the Respondents no 2 to 6 to forthwith provide necessary protection to the Petitioners and to safeguard his land from the Respondents no 7 to 9 encroachment or interference, as mandated under senior citizen Act 2007 and set boundaries to the land pooling owners family members/ Respondents no 7 to 9 and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 direct the Respondent No. 2 to 6 to conduct enquiry and provide adequate protection to the Petitioners and their family members from the Respondents no 7 to 9(family members of land pooling owner, the conveyance deed 6619 of 2023, executed by the Respondent No.3 and 5) 3 and their henchmen under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, in the interest of the justice. pending disposal of the main Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. P SARASWATHI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME 2. GP FOR REVENUE 3. B SOMASEKHAR 4 The Court made the following ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent Nos.1 to 5 and the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.7 to 9. 2. This Writ Petition was filed questioning the action of the respondent Nos.2 to 6 failing to consider the petitioners’ representation dated 26.09.2025, praying protection of the petitioners’ life, property, and peaceful possession under the provisions of the maintenance and welfare of the parents and senior citizens Act, 2007. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the 2nd petitioner is the son of the 1st petitioner and the 7th respondent’s husband is the brother of the 1st petitioner and the respondent Nos.8 and 9 are the children of the 7th respondent. Admittedly, the respondent Nos.7 to 9 are fighting with the petitioners, claiming the share in the petitioners’ property. 4. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 5, relying upon the written instructions of the 5th respondent, submits that the 1st petitioner was issued D-Patta for an extent of Ac.2.67 cents in Sy.No.91-2 and his brother was issued D-Patta for an extent of Ac.1.26 cents in Sy.No.91-11 of Nanginarapadu Village. The brother’s land was resumed under the Land Pooling Scheme and RC plot was allotted. The 1st petitioner’s brother is now claiming a share in the 1st petitioner’s land citing an alleged family partition. The representation dated 5 26.09.2025 has not been received in the 5th respondent’s Office. Relief is sought under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. As per the said Act, the 4th respondent/ the Revenue Divisional Officer is the Maintenance Tribunal and the District Collector is the Appellate Tribunal. The dispute is between two brothers, being the senior citizens. The dispute is pertaining to the sharing of D-Patta land. No application was filed under Rule 21 of the Andhra Pradesh Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2011. 5. In view of the above said facts and circumstances, the 1st petitioner is permitted to make appropriate application under Section 5 of the Andhra Pradesh Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2011, before the competent tribunal, enclosing all the necessary documents in support of his claim within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Order. On receipt of such application from the 1st petitioner, the said competent tribunal shall proceed with the said application, strictly in accordance with law, by hearing all the parties concerned, including the petitioners and the unofficial respondents herein and all others concerned, giving due opportunity, upon verification of the records and the subject property, appropriate decision shall be taken on its own merits, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of four (04) months thereafter. 6 6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN 09.02.2026 SCH 7 467 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. KRISHNA MOHAN W.P.No.34072 of 2025 Date: 09.02.2026 SCH