APHC010285562026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] THURSDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 14927/2026 Between: 1. KAKUMANU ATCHAYYA, S/O. PITCHAYYA, AGED 47 YEARS, COOLIE, R/O. D.NO.6-31/C, ELCHURU VILLAGE, SANTHAMAGULURU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT - 523 303. 2. KAKUMANU BUJJI, S/O. PITCHAYYA, AGED 51 YEARS. COOLIE, R/O. D.NO.6-31/C, ELCHURU VILLAGE, SANTHAMAGULURU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT - 523 303. 3. KAKUMANU RAYELU, S/O PITCHAYYA, AGED 65 YEARS. COOLIE, R/O. D.N0.6-31/C, ELCHURU VILLAGE, SANTHAMAGULURU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT - 523 303. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE SECRETARIAT BUILDING, VELAGAPUDI, THULLURU MANDAL, AMARAVATI - 522 237. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PRAKASASM DISTRICT, ONGOLE - 523 001. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ADDANKI REVENUE DIVISION, ADDANKI - 523 201, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, SANTHAMAGULURU MANDAL, SANTHAMAGURLURU PRAKASAM DISTRICT - 523 302. 2 5. THE VILLAGE REVENUE OFFICER, ELCHURU VILLAGE, SANTHAMAGULURU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT - 523 303. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. YADAVALLI RAMESH 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 a direction, order or Writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in trying to disposes the petitioners from their agriculture land an extent of Ac. 0.50 cents in Sy No 49/C1 situated at Elchuru Village, Santhamagulur Mandal, Prakasam District, Andhra Pradesh, without following due process of law as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice, contrary to the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and and violation of Articles 21 and 300A of the Resettlement Act, 2013 of India and consequently direct the Respondents No 2 to 5 not Constitution to disposes the petitioners forcibly from their agriculture land an extent of Ac.0.50 cents in Sy No 49/Cl situated at Elchuru Village, Santhamagulur Mandal, Prakasam District, Andhra Pradesh without following due process a law …” 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. 3. Mr. Yadavalli Ramesh, learned counsel for the Petitioners, submits that the Respondents are attempting to dispossess the Petitioners from the subject land and prevent them from agricultural usage, in violation of the principles of natural justice and without following due process of law. 3 4. Sri T. Sanjeev Rao, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, on written instructions, submits that the names of the Petitioners have not been mutated as pattadars in respect of the scheduled property in the revenue records (webland Adangal) in place of their deceased father, who expired on 21.06.2006. It is further submitted that members of the Hindu SC Madiga community have approached the District Administration by submitting several representations over the last five years, seeking additional allotment of Government land for a burial ground, as the existing burial ground is insufficient due to the increase in population in Elchuru Village. It is further submitted that Respondent No.4 identified the scheduled property for usage as a burial ground and accordingly submitted proposals to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chirala, for resumption of the land. However, it is stated that at present Respondent No.4 has not taken any steps to dispossess the Petitioners from the scheduled property, which is lying vacant without cultivation and covered with thorny bushes. 5. The contention of Respondent No.4 that the names of the Petitioners were not mutated after the demise of their father in 2006 is not a sole reasonable ground to take the land of the father of the Petitioner and allot it to burial ground, inasmuch as the Petitioners contend that they have been cultivating the land. For the purpose of allotting land for a burial ground, Respondent No.1 ought to have identified some other alternative suitable 4 land, when it is brought to notice that civil suits are pending between the Petitioners and third parties with regard to the subject land. 6. Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the Respondents not to dispossess the Petitioners from the subject land without following due process of law. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. 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: 28.05.2026 PRA/JLSR 5 20 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 14927 of 2026 Date: 28.05.2026 PRA/JLSR