APHC010677262025 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: 34895/2025 Between: 1. KATREDDI VENKATALAKSHMI, W/0 KATREDDI ADINARAYANA MURTHI, AGED 61 YEARS, R/0 2-45, KOTHAPETA, BUTTAYAGUDEM MANDAL, ELURU DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-534448. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPLE SECRETARY, PANCHYATHY RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, A.P SECRETARIAT OFFICE, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DIST, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ELURU DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR, ITDA, KR. PURAM, ELURU DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, JANGAREDDYGUDEM, ELURU DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2 5. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, TRIBAL WELFARE, K.R. PURAM, ELURU DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 6. THE TAHSILDAR, OF BUTTAYAGUDEM MANDAL, ELURU DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 7. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, BUTTAYAGUDEM POLICE STATION, ELURU DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 8. THE BUTTAYAGUDEM GRAM PANCHYATHY, REP BY ITS SECRETARY, BUTTAYAGUDEM MANDAL, ELURU DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 9. THIRUPATHI VEERAJU, S/0 SUBBARAO, R/0 00, KOTHAPETA, BUTTAYAGUDEM MANDAL, ELURU DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-534448. 10. THIRUPATHI MADHU BABU, S/0 VEERAJU R/0 00, KOTHAPETA, BUTTAYAGUDEM MANDAL, ELURU DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-534448. 11. THIRUPATHI PADMAVATHI, W/0 MADHU BABU R/0 00, KOTHAPETA, BUTTAYAGUDEM MANDAL, ELURU DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-534448. ...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 Order or direction particularly, one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of 6-8 respondents in making efforts to dispossess the petitioner from her land of extent Ac. 2.00 cents in Survey No. 602 situated at Buttayagudem Village and Mandal, Eluru District, Andhra Pradesh at the instance of the local politicians without following procedure established by the law, despite of Orders passed by the 3rd respondent in SR. 204/2024 3 Dated 31/05/2024 and SR. 125/1996 Dated 10/01/1996 is as illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice and the act of authorities is against the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of RAME GOWDA V/S M VARADAPPA NAIDU Citation. 2003 LawSuit(SC) 1248 and consequential direct the respondents not to interfere into the peaceful possession over the petitioner's lands extent Ac. 2.00 cents in Survey No. 602 situated at Buttayagudem Village and Mandal, Eluru District, Andhra Pradesh duly considering the orders passed by the 3rd respondent in SR 204/2024 Dated 31/05/2024 and SR 125/1996 Dated 10/01/1996 except procedure established by the law 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 respondents not to interfere over the possession of the peaceful possession over the petitioner’s lands extent Ac. 2.00 cents in Survey No. 602 situated at Buttayagudem Village and Mandal, Eluru District, Andhra Pradesh, duly considering the orders passed by the 3rd respondent in SR 204/2024 Dated 31/05/2024 and SR 125/1996 Dated 10/01/1996 except due process of law and pass o Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. NALLANAGULA LALITHA SREE Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 2. GP FOR HOME 4 The Court made the following Order: To declare the action of respondent Nos.6 to 8 in making efforts to dispossess the petitioner from the land to an extent of Ac.2.00 cents situated in Sy.No.602 of Buttayagudem Village and Mandal, Eluru District, despite the orders passed by the 3rd respondent in SR.No.204/2024, dated 31.05.2024 and SR.No.125/1996, dated 10.01.1996, without following due process of law, as illegal and arbitrary, the present writ petition is filed. 2. Heard Ms. Nallanagula Lalitha Sree, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Y. Koteswara Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the Gram Panchayat, Ms. Naga Chandrika, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Sri M. Chandrasekhar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the contents of the affidavit, contended that when the respondent authorities, in a manner unknown to law, tried to dispossess the petitioner highhandedly, a complaint/grievance was raised before the 3rd respondent-Special Deputy Collector, ITDA. The said 5 complaint/grievance was dealt by the 3rd respondent invoking the provisions of regulation 1/59 as amended by regulation 1/70 of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959, (for brevity “Regulation, 1959”). The said authority observed that the petitioner was in possession of the subject property and it does not hit by the regulations 1/ 59 as amended 1/70 of the Regulations, 1959 and accordingly, the complaint/grievance filed by the 5th respondent-Special Deputy Tahsildar got dismissed. The said proceedings have attained finality. She further submitted that in order to assign the subject land to respondent Nos.10 &11, who are Tribals, the respondent authorities are illegally interfering with the petitioner’s possession. 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 Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, on written instructions dated 16.12.2025, submitted that the petitioner is falsely claiming the possession of the subject property without having actual physical possession; therefore, the 6 petitioner is not entitled for any compensation. He further submitted that both the petitioner as well as the 11th respondent are claiming compensation in respect of the subject property and that the subject land is presently in possession of the 11th respondent. In view of the same, there is no question of interfering with petitioner’s property arise. As such, the writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 5. Perused record and considered the submissions made by both the learned counsel. 6. In the proceedings of the 3rd respondent, vide SR.No.204 of 2024, dated 31.05.2024, which clearly indicate that the petitioner is in possession of the subject property and there is no violation of provisions of regulation 1/59 as amended regulation 1/70. The instructions are not proper and the same has been sent without looking into the records properly. This Court is not inclined to adjudicate whether the petitioner is the rightful owner of the subject property or not. When the petitioner is in possession of the property, if the respondent authorities intend to acquire the same, they have to acquire the same by duly following the procedure contemplated under law. 7 7. Taking into consideration the submissions made by the both the parties, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition by passing the following order: “The respondent authorities are directed not to interfere with or dispossess the petitioner from the land to an extent of Ac.2.00 cents situated in Sy.No.602 of Buttayagudem Village and Mandal, Eluru District, except in accordance with law.” 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. 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: 02.01.2025 ANS 8 286 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 34895/2025 Date: 02.01.2025 ANS