APHC010403232019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] TUESDAY, THE 1st DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 19321/2019 Between: 1. CHANDRAMALLA GANESH @ ABBULU, S/O.CH.MUSALAIAH AGED ABOUT 55 OCC- GOVT EMPLOYEE, VRO BALABHADRAPURAM VILLAGE, BICCAVOLU MANDAL R/O.H.NO.9-108, INDIRA COLONY RAYAVARAM MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DIST., AP ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DIST., A.P. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, A.P. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, RAMACHANDRAPURAM DIVISION, A.P. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, 0/O.MANDAL REVENUE OFFICE, RAYAVARAM MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DIST. A.P. 5. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, RAYAVARAM POLICE STATION RAYAVARAM, EAST GODAVARI DIST, A.P. 6. CHANDRAMALLA MUSALAYYA, S/O.GANNAYYA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS OCC- VRA IN V.SAVAVARAM VILLAGE R/O.H.NO.9-138 INDIRA COLONY, RAYAVARAM MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DIST, A.P 7. SMT CHANDRAMALLA DURGAMMA, W/O.MUSALAYYA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS OCC- HOUSEWIFE R/O.H.NO.9-138 INDIRA 2 VS,J W.P.No.19321 of 2019 COLONY, RAYAVARAM MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DIST, A.P. 8. CHANDRAMALLA DURGA RAO, S/O.MULASAYYA AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS OCC- NIL R/O.H.NO.9-138 INDIRA COLONY, RAYAVAAM MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DIST, A.P. ...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 issue appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents No.1 to 5 in not taking action against the respondents No.6 to 8 for their illegal dispossession of the petitioner with the peaceful possession and enjoyment in and over the property i.e. D.No.9-138 (old) New No.9-108 consists of Ground and First floor constructed in Ac.0-03 cents in R.S.No.103 of Rayavaram village and Mandal, East Godavari District, A.P. is illegal, unlawful, unjust and contrary to law and against the principles of natural justice and consequently to direct the Respondents No.1 to 5 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 15-10-2019 in the interest of justice and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2019 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 Respondents No.1 to 5 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 15-10-2019 in the interest of justice and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K GANI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE (AP) The Court made the following: 3 VS,J W.P.No.19321 of 2019 ORDER: This Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following prayer: “…to issue appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents No.1 to 5 in not taking action against the respondents No.6 to 8 for their illegal dispossession of the petitioner with the peaceful possession and enjoyment in and over the property i.e. D.No.9-138 (old) New No.9-108 consists of Ground and First floor constructed in Ac.0-03 cents in R.S.No.103 of Rayavaram village and Mandal, East Godavari District, A.P. is illegal, unlawful, unjust and contrary to law and against the principles of natural justice and consequently to direct the Respondents No.1 to 5 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 15-10-2019 in the interest of justice and to pass…” 2. The petitioner claims to be the owner and possessor of the building bearing door No.9-138 constructed in Acs.0.03 cents in R.S.No.103 of Rayavaram village and mandal, East Godavari district. The petitioner allowed respondent Nos.6 to 8, who are his parents and brother to live along with him in the subject house. 3. While the matter stood thus, it is alleged that respondent Nos.6 to 8 have dispossessed the petitioner from the subject property without having any authority or right over the same. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 15.10.2019 to respondent 4 VS,J W.P.No.19321 of 2019 Nos.1 to 5 for necessary and proper action against respondent Nos.6 to 8. However, as no action has been initiated, the present writ petition is filed. 4. Heard Sri. K. Gani Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. 5. Perused the entire material available on record. A perusal of the representation submitted by the petitioner dated 15.10.2019 would disclose that by the time the said representation was made, the petitioner was dispossessed by respondent Nos.6 to 8. The petitioner requested respondent Nos.1 to 5 to resume the subject property from respondent Nos.6 to 8 and further to hand over the same to him, which in fact is not within the jurisdiction of respondent Nos.1 to 5 nor within the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. If the petitioner is so aggrieved, he should have filed a civil suit before competent Civil Court against respondent Nos.6 to 8. 6. In view of the same, this writ petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach competent Civil Court by filing appropriate suit against respondent Nos.6 to 8, if so advised. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Petition shall stand closed. _____________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA 01.09.2026 Gss