CHAPALAMADUGU MAHESH vs THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN WRIT PETITION No.9725 of 2023 Chapalamadugu Mahesh, S/o.

Venkataiah, aged about 43 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.

Eedigapalli Village, Obulavaripalli Mandal, Annamayya District. ….

Petitioner Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.

By its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi and 3 others. ….Respondents ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondents.

2.

The grievance of the writ petitioner is that, the 4th respondent is trying to dispossess the petitioner from the subject land in an extent of Acres 4.80 cents in Survey No.1150-3P of Pedda Orampadu Revenue Village, Obulavaripalli Mandal, Annamayya District without following any due procedure.

3.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner is the owner and possessor of the subject land in 2 an extent of Acres 4.80 cents in Survey No.1150-3P of Pedda Orampadu Revenue Village, Obulavaripalli Mandal, Annamayya District under patta No.103.

The Form-1B (ROR) dated 28.03.2023 discloses the name of the petitioner for the subject land.

The Adangal copy dated 02.04.2023 discloses the name of the petitioner for the subject land.

The petitioner also availed loan from the Canara Bank over the subject land.

When there was a threat of dispossession from the private parties, the suit was also filed by the petitioner against the said defendants seeking grant of permanent injunction which was decreed ex-parte dated 10.03.2020 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Railway Kodur.

While so, now that, the 4th respondent is trying to dispossess the petitioner from the subject land without following any due procedure and without issuing any notice to the petitioner.

4. tioner.

4.

On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents submits that, the 4th respondent would follow the due procedure in respect of the subject land.

5.

In view of the above said facts and circumstances, the 4th respondent is directed not to dispossess the petitioner from the subject land except by following the due process of 3 law.

However, it does not preclude for the respondent Nos.2 to 4 to recover/protect the subject land strictly in accordance with law.

6.

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. _______________________________ JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN 19.04.2023 PGT