APHC010008672020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3458]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

MONDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 603/2020 Between:

Nalluri Anjaneyulu, ...PETITIONER AND State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. SITA RAM CHAPARLA Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR REVENUE (AP)

2. M SUDHIR

3. m sudhe The Court made the following:

ORDER:

Challenging the proceedings, dated 24.12.2019, the present writ petition is filed.

2. It is contended that the petitioner has been in occupation of the subject property through his ancestors. It is contended that around 90 years back, the petitioner’s grandfather constructed the house in the subject land and their family was in occupation of the same. After the death of the petitioner’s grandfather, the subject property fell to the share of the petitioner. By removing the old structure, the petitioner has constructed the present building which is in an extent of Ac.0.1 ½ cents and thereafter he has also purchased the share of his brother in 2008 and since then, the petitioner is in exclusive possession of the entire land in an extent of Ac.0.11 cents. In the year 2019, when the respondents have tried to interfere with the possession of the subject property, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the writ petition in W.P.No.16444 of 2019. This Court vide order, dated 22.10.2019 disposed of the writ petition directing the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner in respect of the subject house site property, in respect of the remaining extent this Court directed the 4^th respondent therein to conduct enquiry as to the possession of the subject land and take an appropriate action in accordance with law by giving due opportunity to the petitioner. In pursuance thereto, the impugned order is passed.

3. As noted from the order impugned, the finding of the 4^th respondent is that the subject land is a ‘Grama Kantam’ land, therefore while directing the Mandal Parishad Development Officer, the special officer of the Grama Panchayat observed that the petitioner has no right in respect of the subject land and directed the said authorities to take appropriate action for construction of the Village Secretariat in the subject land. Assailing the said proceedings the present writ petition is filed.

4. This Court vide order, dated 08.01.2019 has granted interim orders directing the parties to maintain ‘Status-Quo’ as of the date.

5. The 4^th respondent has filed counter stating that as per the directions of this Court he has issued notice to the petitioner and after following the due procedure of law, impugned proceedings were issued directing the Mandal Parishad Development Officer and the special officer of the Grama Panchayat to take possession of the land for construction of the Village Secretariat. In pursuance of the impugned proceedings, the 5^th respondent has issued notice, dated 06.01.2020 to the petitioner directing to remove the articles that belonged him, if any, in the subject land of Ac.0.09 cents. He contends that the petitioner has no right in respect of the subject land, since he did not produce any documents in support of his claim.

6. During the course of arguments, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue has placed before the Court a copy of the instructions, dated 30.12.2024 received by him from the Tahsildar in the case. A perusal of the same would reflect that the Grama Panchayat has identified an alternate land in Sy.No.255 in an extent of Ac.0.27 cents and constructed the Grama Sachivalayam and Raithu Bharosa Kendram, over the said land.

7. Considered the rival submissions. The earlier direction of this Court was to conduct enquiry in respect of the subject land pertaining to the petitioner. It is stated that though the Tahsildar has conducted enquiry in terms of the said direction, however the writ p