Date of reserved for orders Date of pronouncement Date of uploading APHC010313792026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Thursday, the 25 The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Writ Petition No.16697 of 2026 Between: 1. Dantuluri Viswanadha Raju, S/o.Kondaraju, aged about 83 years, cultivation, R/o.D.No.2 District. 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary (Revenue), Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District. 2. The District Collector, Polavaram District at Rampachodavaram. 3. The Integrated Tribal Development Agency, represented Officer, Polavaram District at Rampachodavaram. 4. The Revenue Divisional Officer, O/o.Rampachodavaram Revenue Division, Polavaram District. 5. The Tahsildar, Addateegala Mandal, Addateegala, Polavaram District. 6. Special Deputy Collector, Tribal Welfare, Rampachodavaram, Polavaram District. 7. Janumuri Jogamma, W/o.Pandayya, aged about 50 years, House R/o.Regulapadu village, Addateegala Mandal, Polavaram District. : :25.06.2026 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) Thursday, the 25th day of June, 2026 Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Writ Petition No.16697 of 2026 Dantuluri Viswanadha Raju, S/o.Kondaraju, aged about 83 years, cultivation, R/o.D.No.2-423, Addateegala town and mandal, Polavaram ...Petitioner and The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary (Revenue), Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District. The District Collector, Polavaram District at Rampachodavaram. The Integrated Tribal Development Agency, represented by its Project Officer, Polavaram District at Rampachodavaram. The Revenue Divisional Officer, O/o.Rampachodavaram Revenue Division, Polavaram District. The Tahsildar, Addateegala Mandal, Addateegala, Polavaram District. Special Deputy Collector, Tribal Welfare, Rampachodavaram, Janumuri Jogamma, W/o.Pandayya, aged about 50 years, House R/o.Regulapadu village, Addateegala Mandal, Polavaram District. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3311] Dantuluri Viswanadha Raju, S/o.Kondaraju, aged about 83 years, 423, Addateegala town and mandal, Polavaram ...Petitioner The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary The District Collector, Polavaram District at Rampachodavaram. by its Project The Revenue Divisional Officer, O/o.Rampachodavaram Revenue The Tahsildar, Addateegala Mandal, Addateegala, Polavaram District. Special Deputy Collector, Tribal Welfare, Rampachodavaram, Janumuri Jogamma, W/o.Pandayya, aged about 50 years, House-wife, R/o.Regulapadu village, Addateegala Mandal, Polavaram District. 2 BSB,J W.P.No.16697 of 2026 8. Kolikela Chandramma, W/o.Swami Reddy, aged about 55 years, House wife, R/o.Regulapadu village, Addateegala mandal, Polavaram District. 9. Janumuri Balaraju, S/o.Chinnaiah, aged about 45 years, Business, R/o.Regulapadu village, Addateegala mandal, Polavaram District. 10. Pothuru Venkata Reddy, S/o.Chinna Rao, aged about 50 years, Business, R/o.Regulapadu village, Addateegala Mandal, Polavaram District. 11. Pothuru Dharma Reddy, S/o.Chinna Rao, aged about 50 years, Business, R/o.Regulapadu village, Addateegala mandal, Polavaram District. ...Respondents. Counsel for the petitioner: 1. M/s.Astonish Laws Counsel for the respondents: 1. Government Pleader for Revenue 2. Government Pleader for Social Welfare 3 BSB,J W.P.No.16697 of 2026 The Court made the following Order: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ or order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus, declaring the action of the respondent No.6 herein in not considering the settlement patta dt.16.12.1974 under Case File No.3509/73 issued by the Settlement Officer, Muttadari Abolition, Peddapuram, Kakinada District and initiating the Land Transfer Regulation Petition under A.D.O.L.T.R.P.No.17/ 2025 and trying to evict the petitioner herein from his lands admeasuring Ac. 68.02 cents in Survey Nos.26, 77, 78, 79 and 81 situated at Darsinuthala @ Regulapadu village of Addateegala Mandal, Polavaram District as arbitrary, autocratic, illegal, ultravires and against principles of natural justice & consequently direct the respondents Nos.1 to 6 herein not to evict the petitioner from his above mentioned lands without due process of law in the interests of justice and to pass such other order, which this Court deems fit in the interest of justice. 02. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows: The petitioner is an absolute owner of the subject land. The settlement officer, Muttadari Abolition, Peddapuram, under Section 8 r/w. Rule 17 of the Andhra Pradesh Muttas (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Regulation, 1969 (A.P.Regulation 2 of 1969), issued a ryotwari patta in favour of the petitioner. During the year, 1980, the respondent No.5 herein issued pattadar pass books and title deeds in favour of the petitioner. He paid land tax up to the year 1983. Thereafter, no tax was levied on the said lands. Presently, the petitioner has been cultivating the lands. The remaining extent of lands covered under Survey Nos.78 and 79 devolved on from his ancestors who had been in occupation even before the 4 BSB,J W.P.No.16697 of 2026 A.P.Regulation 2 of 1969 was passed. The respondent No.5 conducted survey of the petitioner’s land vide proceeding FL.No.FL/7691/2021 dated 20.02.2021 in S.No.26 and approved Ac.18.04 cents to him. The respondents Nos.7 to 11 attempted to encroach the petitioner’s land. The petitioner submitted a complaint to the respondent No.2 through P.G.R.S., fixing 18.04.2026 as the date for resolution of the issue. During February, 2026, he received a notice from the office of the respondent No.6 calling upon him to appear on 02.04.2026 in A.D.O.L.T.R.P.No.17 / 2025. In compliance, the petitioner appeared before the respondent No.6. Without serving any material papers relating to A.D.O.L.T.R.P.No.17/2025, the respondent No.6 proceeded believing that the petitioner’s lands are tribals’ property. When the petitioner produced a settlement patta dated 16.12.1974, the respondent No.6 without considering the same is attempting to evict the petitioner from the lands. Hence, this writ petition was filed. 03. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue placed on record a copy of written instructions of the respondent No.6 vide Ref.No.LTRP / 17 / 2025 dated 23.06.2026 wherein the following relevant paragraphs are stated : “3. It is submitted that the enquiry is still in progress and no final order or finding has been recorded by the competent authority. The parties are yet to place their respective documents and evidence for consideration and all parties are being provided with ample opportunities to present their evidence. 7. It is further submitted that no order of eviction has been passed against the writ petitioner. No coercive steps have been initiated or proposed against the petitioner as on date. Any action, if warranted can be taken only after completion of enquiry, consideration of the evidence placed by the parties and due process as contemplated under the 5 BSB,J W.P.No.16697 of 2026 A.P.Scheduled Area Land Transfer Regulation 1/59, as amended by Regulation 1/70. 8. It is pertinent to submit that the allegations made in the writ affidavit are based merely on an apprehension of possible action. The apprehension is unfounded, as the statutory proceedings are still pending and no decision adverse to the petitioner has been taken. 9. It is further submitted that there exists a statutory provision allowing any aggrieved party to file an appeal before the Additional Agent to the Government and the Project Officer, I.T.D.A., Rampachodavaram within 60 days from the date of communication of the order as per Rule 8 (2) of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Rules, 1969. 10. Furthermore, an aggrieved party may also file a revision petition before the Government within 60 days from the date of receipt of the order of the appellant authority i.e., Additional Agent to the Government and the Project Officer, I.T.D.A., Rampachodavaram. 11. However, the petitioner has by passed the remedies provided under the A.P.Scheduled Area Land Transfer Regulation 1/59, as amended by Regulation 1/70, and has directly approached this Court.” 04. In view of the same, the learned counsel for the petitioner requested to dispose of the writ petition, recording the above said instructions. 05. Accordingly, this Court perceives that there is no threat of immediate dispossession as the respondents undertake to follow the procedure of law in case the petitioner is to be evicted from the subject land and that no coercive steps would be initiated against the petitioner. In case 6 BSB,J W.P.No.16697 of 2026 aggrieved by any order, the petitioner may avail appropriate remedy as per law. Thus, the writ petition is disposed of recording the written instructions. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. ___________________ ___ JUSTICE B.S. BHANUMATHI Date: 25.06.2026 Note: CC by 29.06.2026 GRL Whether the order is : Speaking Yes Reasoned Reportable Non-reportable Yes 7 BSB,J W.P.No.16697 of 2026 61 THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI WRIT PETITION NO:16697 of 2026 Date: 25.06.2026 Note: CC by 29.06.2026 GRL 8 BSB,J W.P.No.16697 of 2026