APHC010944992018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] TUESDAY, THE 21st DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 45645/2018 Between: 1. AADIREDDY TULASI VENKATA SATYA SURYA GANESH KUMAR, S/O AADIREDDY YERRI NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O LINGALA BUPALAPURAM AGRAHARAM, BUTCHIYYAPETA MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP., BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, AMARAVATHI, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, VISAKHAPATNAM, DISTRICT. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, BUTCHIYYAPETA 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 to to issue an order or direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent authorities in trying to disposes the petitioner from the land in an extent of Ac.2.00 cents in Sy. No. 89-3 and another extent of Ac.1.00 cents in Sy. No. 89-2 respectively total extent of Ac.3.00 cents situated in Lopudi village, B Butchiyyapeta mandal, Visakhapatnam District, as arbitrary, illegal, null and 2 VS,J W.P.No.45645 of 2018 void and against norm of public policy and principles of natural justice and consequently to direct the respondent authorities not to assign the above land to any third person and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2018 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 to direct the respondent authorities not to evict the petitioner from the land in an extent of Ac.2.00 cents in Sy. No. 89-3 and another extent of Ac.1.00 cents in Sy. No. 89-2 respectively total extent of Ac.3.00 cents situated in Lopudi village, B Butchiyyapeta mandal, Visakhapatnam District, pending disposal of the above writ petition, and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 vacate the interim order dated 15.12.2018 in IA.No.1 of 2018 in WP.No.45645 of 2018 and dismiss the writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. VENKATESWARA RAO GUDAPATI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE (AP) The Court made the following: 3 VS,J W.P.No.45645 of 2018 ORDER: This Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following prayer: “…to issue an order or direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent authorities in trying to disposes the petitioner from the land in an extent of Ac.2.00 cents in Sy. No. 89-3 and another extent of Ac.1.00 cents in Sy. No. 89-2 respectively total extent of Ac.3.00 cents situated in Lopudi village, B Butchiyyapeta mandal, Visakhapatnam District, as arbitrary, illegal, null and void and against norm of public policy and principles of natural justice and consequently to direct the respondent authorities not to assign the above land to any third person and to pass…” 2. The petitioner is an ex-servicemen and claims to have purchased the land admeasuring Acs.2.00 cents in Sy.No.89-3 and another extent of Acs.1.00 cents in Sy.No.89-2 situated in Lopudi village, B. Butchiyyapeta mandal, Visakhapatnam district by way of agreement of sale dated 24.03.2004 executed by one S. Srinu s/o late Sriram Murthy, who is the original owner of the said land. Having come to know that the subject land is an assigned land, the petitioner made several applications to the 3rd respondent under the provisions of Section 15(2)(iii) of the A.P. Board Standing Orders with a request to assign the subject land in his favour which he has purchased by way of agreement of sale dated 24.03.2004. 4 VS,J W.P.No.45645 of 2018 3. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not considering the said applications, the petitioner filed W.P.No.2140 of 2015 which was disposed of on 28.04.2022 with the following direction: “4. In view of the fact situation, the land is not resumed as contended by the respondents invoking the provisions under Section 4(i)(b)(c) of the Act, as the alienation is in violation of Section 3 of the Act. It cannot be resumed except by following the procedure prescribed under Section 3 of the Rules framed under the Act. Hence, the respondents are directed to consider the applications 22.06.2006, 03.03.2008, 22.06.2009, 04.02.2010, 18.04.2013 and pass appropriate orders, in the event of resumption in accordance with the law.” 4. Pending consideration of the said applications by the 3rd respondent, as the respondent authorities are trying to dispossess the petitioner from the subject land without following the due procedure prescribed under law, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 5. When the writ petition came up for admission on 15.12.2018, this Court passed an interim order in I.A.No.1 of 2018, directing the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the subject land, without following due process of law. 6. The 3rd respondent filed a detailed counter affidavit duly stating that the entries in revenue records do not confer any title and the classification of the subject land in the revenue records is „Government Land‟. It is further stated that the respondents are only acting in 5 VS,J W.P.No.45645 of 2018 accordance with the statutory provisions of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 and that the petitioner has no legal right to remain in possession of the subject land as the transaction under which he claims possession over the land is void. At this stage, the question of considering his application under Ex-Servicemen quota does not arise as the statutory procedure of resumption has not been completed. Hence, requested to dismiss the writ petition. 7. Heard Sri. Venkateswara Rao Gudapati, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. 8. Perused the material available on record. During the course of arguments, learned Assistant Government Pleader furnished a copy of endorsement issued by the 3rd respondent dated 05.01.2026, duly rejecting the request of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is not entitled for assignment under the Ex-servicemen quota as the original assignee has violated the conditions under Section 3 of A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977. However, in the said endorsement, nowhere it has been mentioned as to whether the subject land has been resumed by the Government as the original assignee has violated the conditions under Section 3 of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 and as to whether it is feasible to re- allot the subject land to the petitioner under ex-servicemen quota as requested by him. 6 VS,J W.P.No.45645 of 2018 9. In view of the same, instead of touching the merits, this Court feels it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by directing the respondents not to interfere with the petitioner‟s possession over the subject property without following due process of law. However, the petitioner is at liberty to challenge the endorsement issued by the 3rd respondent dated 05.01.2026, if so advised. 10. Accordingly, with the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Petition shall stand closed. _____________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA 21.07.2026 Gss