Sana Rajagopal Narsing Rao Vs the State of Ap

SANA RAJAGOPAL NARSING RAO, S/O LATE S. SURYANARAYANA MURTY HINDU, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O H.NO.29-41-2/1 SBI COLONY, OPP. DISTRICT COURT, VISAKHAPATNAM.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

THE STATE OF AP, REP, BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI.

¶13

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, VISAKHAPATNAM ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶14

THE TAHSILDAR, GAJUWAKA, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶15

GREATER VISAKHAPATNAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER, ASILMELTA VISAKHAPATNAM, ANDHRA PRADESH

¶16

ANDHRA PRADESH TOWNSHIP AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION APTID CO, REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN, 7-10-4, PRASADMANPADU, NH 16, CURRENCY NAGAR, VIJAYAWADA, ANDHRA PRADESH - 521108

¶17

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶18

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 pray that this Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in allotting and assigning Petitioners lands admeasuring acres 1.00 situated in Sy.No.86, Village, Gajuwaka Mandal, Viskhapatnam District in favour of APTIDCO without issuing

¶19

2

¶20

any notice to the Petitioner in clear violation of the principles of natural Justice totally ignoring the fact of Petitioner being in continuous possession and enjoyment of the subject land since 1985 as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional, and to restore possession of the schedule land admeasuring acres 1.00 situated in Sy.No.86, Gajuwaka Village, Gajuwaka Mandal, Viskhapatnam District or to consequently award compensation for the schedule land which possession was handed over to the fifth Respondent by the 4^th Respondent under the previous of Andhra Pradesh right to fair compensation and transparent in land acquisition, Rehabilitation and resettlement rules, 2014.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶22

1.V PREETI REDDY

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶24

1.GP FOR REVENUE

¶25

2.PADMAJA GADIRAJU(SC FOR APTIDCO)

¶26

The Court made the following:

¶27

3

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:

¶30

"….. pray that this Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in allotting and assigning Petitioner’s lands admeasuring acres 1.00 situated in Sy.No.86, Village, Gajuwaka Mandal, Viskhapatnam District in favour of APTIDCO without issuing any notice to the Petitioner in clear violation of the principles of natural Justice totally ignoring the fact of Petitioner being in continuous possession and enjoyment of the subject land since 1985 as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional, and to restore possession of the schedule land admeasuring acres 1.00 situated in Sy.No.86, Gajuwaka Village, Gajuwaka Mandal, Viskhapatnam District or to consequently award compensation for the schedule land which possession was handed over to the fifth Respondent by the 4^th Respondent under the previous of Andhra Pradesh Right to Fair Compensation and Transparent in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Rules, 2014, and pass such others……."

¶31

It is stated in the affidavit that the then Mandal Revenue Officer, Gajuwaka issued ryotwari patta in Form No.VIII of Inam Abolition Act, 1956, for Ac.1.00 in Sy.No.86 part of Gajuwaka village on 24.11.1985, where the patta granted by the inamdar in the year 1968 was confirmed by the then Mandal Revenue Officer, Gajuwaka, by issuing ryotwari patta in Form No.VIII. Since 1968, the petitioner was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said land. When the respondent– authorities are trying to dispossess the petitioner herein, he filed Writ

¶32

4

¶33

Petition No.412 of 2019 and the same was disposed of on 07.12.2022, directing the respondents not to interfere with the petitioner’s land admeasuring Ac.1.00 cents situated in Sy.No.86 of Gajuwaka village and Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, except under due process of law. Now the respondent – authorities have allotted the said land to the 5^th respondent – APTID CO and the very allotment of the property to the APTID CO without issuing any notice, and is in violation of the principles of natural justice. Hence, the present Writ Petition is filed to restore possession of the schedule land admeasuring Ac.1.00 cents in Sy.No.86 of Gajuwaka village and Mandal.

¶34

The 3^rd respondent – Tahsildar filed brief counter affidavit adverting that the land in Sy.No.86 is a Hill Poramboke land and the same was handed over to APIIC for taking up of housing under Affordable Housing Partnership and the APTID CO has completed construction of houses and the petitioner has no right over the subject land for claiming the subject land and the pattas issued to the unauthorized persons for government lands cannot be considered as valid and no one can claim the government land under the guise of such pattas.

¶35

A reply affidavit is filed by the writ petitioner denying all the contentions raised in the counter affidavit.

¶36

After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that it would suffice if the petitioner is permitted to file a comprehensive representation to the District Collector addressing all the grievances and the same may be considered in accordance with law.

¶37

5

¶38

Learned Assistant Government Pleader has not significantly opposed the request made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶39

Therefore, the present Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the petitioner to submit a detailed representation/application to the District Collector addressing all the grievances within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on receipt of such representation/application, the District Collector is directed to examine the same and pass appropriate orders after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and communicate the said decision to the petitioner. It is needless to say that the said application/representation made by the petitioner shall be disposed of within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of the application/representation from the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶40

As a sequel thereto, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶41

__________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

Date: 08.12.2025

Siva/CMK

6

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO