D Lakshmi Narayana Chowdary Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 1209 OF 2025

¶6

Between:

¶7

D Lakshmi Narayana Chowdary, S/o Sreenivasulu Naidu,^Age42years R/o. D.N0.19-3-2/J4/H, Jeevan Residency, Renigunta^{Road,Tirupati} Tirupati District.

¶8

Y. Dinesh, S/o Late Damodar Reddy, Age 29 years, R/o. D.No.4-1 Perumallapalli Village, Tirupati Rural Mandal, Tirupati^District

¶9

...PETITIONERS

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal^{Secretary,Revenue} Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur^District.

¶12

The District Collector, Trupati, Tirupati District.

¶13

The Joint Collector and Additional District Magistrate, Trupati, Tirupati District.

¶14

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Trupati, Tirupati^District.

¶15

The Tahsildar, Tirupati Rural Mandal, Tirupati District.

¶16

G. Sowdamini, W/o Late Subramanyam Reddy Age 71 years, R/o: D.No.20-2-496/A, Maruthi Nagar, Korlagunta, Tirupati.^{TirupatiDistrict.}

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶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 issue a Writ, or direction more particularly^{oneinthenatureof} Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order Or writs or direction

¶19

challenging the orders vide Rc.D 1/2120/2024 dated 07.01.2025 passed by to an extent of Ac. TfiyOrjil respondent to remove the land in Sy.No.430/2A1 jGdnts situated at Pudipatia Village, Tirupati Rural Mandal, Tirupati d^iltrict from the Dispute Register without giving any opportunity of hearing is illegal and arbitrary and consequently set aside the orders vide Re. DI/2120/2024 dated 07.01.2025 passed by the 3rd respondent.

¶20

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶21

Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of orders vide Rc.DI/2120/2024 dated 07.01.2025 passed by the 3rd respondent for remove the land in Sy.No.430/2A1 to an extent of Ac. 1- 00 cents situated at Pudipatia Village, Tirupati Rural Mandal, Tirupati District from the Dispute Register, pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI SOMISETTY GANESH BABU

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5: GP FOR REVENUE

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent No.6: SRI P GANGARAMI REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER

¶25

1

¶26

APHC010023812025

¶27

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶28

[3329]

¶29

FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶30

PRESENT

¶31

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶32

WRIT PETITION NO: 1209/2025

¶33

Between:

¶34

D Lakshmi Narayana Chowdary and Others

¶35

...PETITIONER(S)

¶36

AND

¶37

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others

¶38

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶39

Counsel for the Petltioner(S):

¶40

1.SOMISETTY GANESH BABU

¶41

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶42

1.GP FOR REVENUE

¶43

2.SUBBA RAO KORRAPATI

¶44

2

¶45

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENAKTESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶46

WRIT PETITION NO.1209 of 2025

¶47

This Court made the following

¶48

ORDER:

¶49

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the^{Constitutionof} India seeking the following relief:

¶50

“..to issue a Writ or direction more particularly one^{inthenatureof} writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order^orwritsor direction to declar re the orders vide Rc.D1/2120/2024,^dated 07.01.2025 passed by the 3'^'' respondent to remove^theland in Sy NO.430/2A1 to an extent of Ac 1-00 cents situated^atPudipatia Village, Tirupati Rural Mandal, Tirupati District from^theDispute Register without giving any opportunity of hearing,^asillegaland arbitrary and consequently set aside the orders vide Rc. DI/2120/2024, dated 07.01.2025 passed by the 3'"^ respondent and to pass any such...”

¶51

Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that in^{responsetothe} Application filed by the Unofficial Respondent No.6^{fordeletionofthe} Subject Property from the Dispute Register, the Writ^{Petitionershave} received a Notice on 30.12.2024 and he had filed Vakalat^{on04.01.2025,} seeking time to get ready for hearing of the matter. It is submitted that

¶52

surprisingly, the Writ Petitioners have received the Impugned Order issued by Respondent No.3, directing for deletion of the Subject Land from the Dispute Register. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners has taken this Court through the contents of the Impugned Order dated 07.01.2025 which would indicate that the same has been passed after hearing the arguments on both sides. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently submits that the Writ Petitioners have neither received any Notice of Hearing nor, in fact, appeared before the respondent on 04.01.2025 He would also submit that on 04.01.2025, the case was only adjourned and no hearing took place and, hence, the statement that the matter was heard on 04.01.2025 i IS factually incorrect. He would also submit that no reasons were given for passing the impugned Order and therefore, the said order is cryptic in nature.

¶53

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Revenue and perused the material placed on record.

¶54

For the reasons submitted by both the counsel, this Court is of the considered view that this Writ Petition can be dispose by setting aside the order in Rc.D 1/2120/2024, dated 07.01.2025 issuedi by the respondent by remanding the same with a direction to the 3 respondent after affording an opportunity of hearing to all the concerned parties.

¶55

4

¶56

pass an appropriate orders in accordance with governing^lawandrules

¶57

within three (3) months from the date of receipt of^{acopyofthisorder.}

¶58