APHC010668592025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] FRIDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 34689/2025 Between: 1. VELINENI SRINIVASA RAO,, S/O. SIVANARAYANA, AGED 49, R/O. DOOR NO.3-27, TAKKELLAPADU VILLAGE, PEDAKAKANI MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, DEPT, OF PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, DEPT, OF REVENUE, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 5. THE TAHSILDHAR, PEDAKAKANI MANDAL, GUNTUR 2 DISTRICT 6. THE TAKKELLAPADU GRAM PANCHAYAT, REP. BY ITS PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, TAKKELLAPADU VILLAGE, PEDAKAKANI MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 7. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, THE TAKKELLAPADU GRAM PANCHAYAT, TAKKELLAPADU VILLAGE, PEDAKAKANI MANDAL, GUNTUR 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 tomay be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents, particularly respondents 5, 6 and 7, in interfering with my possession and enjoyment of the land admeasuring Ac.0.70 cents situated in Sy.No.16/4 of Takkellapadu Village, Pedakakani Mandal, Guntur District, and in proposing to assign the same to third parties or utilize it for construction or development purposes, during the pendency of the revision before the 2nd respondent Government, as the same is contrary to law, illegal, arbitrary, against the principles of natural justice and without jurisdiction and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with my possession and enjoyment of the subject land and not to create any third-party rights till disposal of the revision filed by me under Section 4-B of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 before the 2nd respondent Government and to pass such 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 may be pleased to direct the respondents, more particularly respondents 5 to 7, not to 3 interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land of the petitioner admeasuring Ac.0.70 cents situated in Sy.No.16/4 of Takkellapadu Village, Pedakakani Mandal, Guntur District, pending disposal of the writ petition and to pass such IA NO: 2 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 may be pleased to direct the respondents, not to create any third party rights over the land of the petitioner admeasuring Ac.0.70 cents situated in Sy.No. 16/4 of Takkellapadu Village, Pedakakani Mandal, Guntur District, pending disposal of the writ petition and to pass such IA NO: 3 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 May be pleased to permit me to place on record the additional affidavit along with material papers on record in continuation of the earlier affidavit filed in WP34689 of 2025 by taking the same into consideration for their purpose of adjudication of the writ petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P SAI SURYA TEJA 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 4 The Court made the following order: To declare the action of respondent Nos.5, 6 & 7 in trying to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner’s land to an extent of Ac.0.70 cents situated in Sy.No.16/4 of Takkellapadu Village, Pedakani Mandal, Guntur District, and proposing to assign the same to third parties, as illegal and arbitrary, the present writ petition is filed. 2. Heard Sri P. Sai Surya Teja, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri M. Sudheer, learned Standing Counsel for the Gram the Panchayat, Ms. Naga Chandrika, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Sri M. Chandra Sekhar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit, submitted that the petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of the subject land, having purchased the same through an agreement of sale coupled with possession dated 21.03.2011. He further submitted that in fact, the petitioner’s vendor had purchased the subject property under registered document No.194 of 2006, dated 19.01.2006. But surprisingly, the respondent authorities, ignoring the due 5 procedure contemplated under law, are highhandedly interfering with the petitioner’s property and attempting to dispossess him. If such action is allowed, it would affect the rights of the petitioner. As such, prayed to pass appropriate orders protecting the interest of the petitioner. 4. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel, on written instructions dated 14.12.2025, submitted that the petitioner is not in possession of the subject land and that it is vested with Gram Panchayat concerned, classified as ‘Government Poramboke’, and a notice board has been erected to that effect. He further submitted that the Gram Panchayat has neither assigned the subject land to any third person nor granted any approval for construction. He contended that when the petitioner is not in possession of the property, the question of interference does not arise. As such, the writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, on written instructions dated Nil.12.2025, contended that the subject land was originally assigned to one Ogirala Adinarayana S/o China Kotaiah vide Patta D.K.No.8/1938, dated 10.03.1989, and 6 the said assignee has violated the assignment conditions and thereby sold the properly to one Sri Cherukuri Vasudevarao S/o Veeralah in the year 2005. In view of the violation of the assignment conditions, invoking the provisions of A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for brevity Act, 1977) has passed resumption orders and resumed the land. Now, the subject land is classified as ‘Government Poramboke’. However, the petitioner illegally came into possession and constructed godown without obtaining any permission. In view of the same, the concerned Collector directed the Tahsildar to take possession of the subject land, to utilize the same for Government purpose and the authorities are inclined to take steps accordingly. 6. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as against the resumption orders passed by the authority concerned, an appeal was preferred and upon dismissal of the same, a revision before the government came to be filed and the same is pending consideration. Despite knowing the pendency of the revision before the Government, the authorities cannot dispossess the petitioner highhandedly. As such, prayed to pass appropriate orders. 7 7. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties. 8. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is in possession of the subject property. It is the contention of the respondents that the petitioner constructed godown without obtaining permission from the concerned authority. It is also evident that the revenue authorities, invoking the provisions of the Act 1977, have passed the resumption orders, which were confirmed by the appellate authority, and the issue is now pending before the Government in revision. This Court is not inclined go into the merits and demerits of the case and decide whether there is any violation of assignment conditions and that the petitioner is in rightful possession of the property or not. Having admitted that the petitioner is in possession of the subject property, even assuming that the petitioner is an encroacher, it is a well settled principle of law that any encroachment can be removed only by following due process of law. 9. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the respondents not to interfere with the petitioner’s land to an extent of Ac.0.70 cents situated in Sy.No.16/4 of 8 Takkellapadu Village, Pedakani Mandal, Guntur District, except in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications pending, if any in the Writ Petition, shall also stand closed. ____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date: 02.01.2026 ANS 9 285 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 34689/2025 Date: 02.01.2026 ANS