Mamidi Penta Reddy Vs the State of Ap

¶1

APHC010278112024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3327] (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

THURSDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO: 13986/2024

¶6

Between:

¶7

MAMIDI PENTA REDDY, S/O LATE ERUKU REDDY, AGE40 YRS, OCC-CULTIVATION, R/O JALLURU VILLAGE ADDATEEGALA MANDAL, ALLURI SITHA RAMA RAJU DISTRICT.

¶8

...PETITIONER A N D

¶9

THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, SOCIAL WELFARE (LTR) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶10

THE ADDITIONAL AGENT TO THE GOVT, RAMPACHODAVARAM, ALLURI SITHA RAMA RAJU DISTRICT.

¶11

THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR, TRIBAL WELFARE, RAMPACHODAVARAM, ALLURI SITHA RAMA RAJU DISTRICT

¶12

THE TAHSILDAR, ADDATEEGALA MANDAL, ALLURI SITHA RAMA RAJU DISTRICT

¶13

THE SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, TRIBAL WELFARE, ADDATEEGALA MANDAL, ALLURI SITHA RAMA RAJU DISTRICT.

¶14

PASALA VENKATACHALAM, S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, R/O D.NO.4-95, VIPPARU VILLAGE, PENTAPADU MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S):

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the

¶16

SRK, J W.P.No.13986 of 2024

¶17

2

¶18

High Court may be pleased to issue order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents 4 and 5 in seeking to evict the petitioner from the lands to an extent of an extent of Ac 10.22 cts in Sy.No.80 of Dhanyampalem Village, Addateegala Mandal, Alluri Sitha Rama Raju District pending disposal of the Statutory Revision before the 1st respondent as wholly illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently direct the respondents not to evict the petitioner from the above said land pending disposal of the Revision before the 1st respondent, in the interest of Justice and pass

¶19

IA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶20

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 may be pleased to direct the respondents 4 and 5 not to evict the petitioner from the land of an extent of Ac 10.22 cts in Sy.No.80 of Dhanyampalem Village, Addateegala Mandal, Alluri Sitha Rama Raju District, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and pass

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶22

1.K VENKATESH

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶24

1.GP FOR REVENUE

¶25

2.GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE

¶26

The Court made the following:

¶27

SRK, J W.P.No.13986 of 2024

¶28

3

¶29

O R D E R

¶30

This Writ Petition is filed challenging the action of respondent Nos.4 and 5 in seeking to evict the petitioner from the land to an extent of Ac.10.22 cents in Survey No.80 of Dhanyampalem village, Addateegala Mandal, Alluri Sitha Rama Raju District pending disposal of statutory Revision before 1^st respondent, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents not to evict the petitioner from the above said land pending disposal of the Revision before 1^st respondent.

¶31

Contents of the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, in brief, are that, petitioner belonged to Schedule Tribe (Kondareddy) Community and his father viz. late Mamidi Abbai Reddy was the owner of land to an extent of Ac.13.22 cents (5.35 HA) in Survey No.80 of Dhanyampalem village, Addateegala Mandal, Alluri Sitha Rama Raju District; that as the petitioner belonged to Schedule Tribe community, there is prohibition to own and possess the lands in the scheduled area; that as on the date, the petitioner was in physical possession and personally cultivating the said land by raising cashew-nut garden.

¶32

(b) Respondent No.6 and his family members, who are non-tribals, occupied the said land, illegally, as such, the petitioner

¶33

SRK, J W.P.No.13986 of 2024

¶34

4

¶35

initiated proceedings under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959 (Regulation No.I of 1959) for their ejection; that the complaint was registered as L.T.R.P.No.2/2019 and the respondent No.3, after conducting inquiry, passed orders on 25.06.2020 in favour of petitioner, directing eviction of the non-tribals; that the land was handed over to the petitioner by conducting Panchanama in the presence of Village Revenue Officer, Dhanyampalem village and Mandal Surveyor, Addateegala Mandal by fixing boundaries, on 27.01.2021 and since then, the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of entire extent of schedule property.

¶36

(c) Aggrieved by the Order, dated 25.06.2020 in L.T.R.P.No.2 of 2019, respondent No.6 filed appeal vide C.M.A.No.2 of 2021 before respondent No.2; that the respondent No.2 passed Order, dated 12.04.2024 in C.M.A.No.2 of 2021, upholding the orders passed by respondent No.3, but erroneously directed to restore Ac.3.00 cents in favour of petitioner and remaining Ac.10.22 cents in favour of the Government.

¶37

(d) Aggrieved by the said Order, dated 12.04.2024 passed in C.M.A.No.2 of 2021 by respondent No.2, petitioner filed Revision before 1^st respondent on 07.05.2024 under Section 6 of the Andhra

¶38

SRK, J W.P.No.13986 of 2024

¶39

5

¶40

Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959; that the petitioner also filed an application seeking direction not to dispossess from the schedule land in pursuance of the Order, dated 12.04.2024 passed in C.M.A.No.2 of 2021 pending disposal of the Revision. Though the Revision is pending before 1^st respondent, respondent Nos.4 and 5 are trying to dispossess the petitioner from the schedule property; that if, the petitioner is dispossessed from the schedule property, the very purpose of filing Revision before 1^st respondent would be defeated. Hence, the Writ Petition.

¶41

Learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare representing respondent Nos.1, 2 and 5, on instructions, submits that as per FLR, the land to an extent Hec.5.35 (Ac.13.21 cents) in Dhanyampalem village of Addateegala Mandal, is classified as Government Dry and recorded in the name one Pasala Venkata Chalam, S/o. Venkateswara Rao ( i.e. respondent No.6), whereas, as per Manual Adangal Fasli 1425, 1B and webland, it was noted the name of one Pasala Venkateswara Rao, S/o. Venkatarao.

¶42

Learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare, while conceding with the contentions of the Writ Petitioner with regard to filing of L.T.R.P.No.2 of 2019, Appeal in C.M.A.No.2 of 2021, and

¶43

SRK, J W.P.No.13986 of 2024

¶44

6

¶45

also preferring Revision, submits that the official respondents never visited the land in the scheduled area and the respondent Nos.4 and 5 never tried to dispossess the petitioner from Ac.10.22 cents in Sy.No.80 of Dhanyampalem village of Addateegala Mandal.

¶46

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Tribal Welfare representing respondent Nos.1 to 3 and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue representing respondent Nos.4 and 5.

¶47

A perusal of the entire material on record goes to show that petitioner filed L.T.R.P.No.2/2019 against respondent No.6 before the respondent No.3, who, after conducting inquiry, passed orders on 25.06.2020 in favour of petitioner, directing the respondent No.4 to evict respondent No.6, who is a non-tribal, from the land in the scheduled area and hand over the same to the petitioner.

¶48

A perusal of the record further goes to show that aggrieved by the Order, dated 25.06.2020 passed in L.T.R.P.No.2 of 2019 by respondent No.3, respondent No.6 filed appeal vide C.M.A.No.2 of 2021 before respondent No.2. Respondent No.2, after appreciating the contentions and rival contentions of both

¶49

SRK, J W.P.No.13986 of 2024

¶50

7

¶51

sides, passed Order, dated 12.04.2024 in C.M.A.No.2 of 2021, upholding the Order, dated 25.06.2020 in L.T.R.P.No.2/2019 passed respondent No.3. However, respondent No.2 in its Order, dated 12.04.2024 in C.M.A.No.2 of 2021 gave finding that the respondent No.4 reported that only Ac.3.00 cents was under possession and occupation of petitioner and the remaining Ac.10.22 cents was uncultivated and covered with bushes. Therefore, respondent No.2 partially modified the Order, dated 25.06.2020 passed in L.T.R.P.No.2 of 2019 by respondent No.3, directing respondent No.4 to hand over the land from the scheduled area i.e. Ac.3.00 cents out of Ac.13.22 cents in Sy.No.80 of Dhanyampalem village, Addateegala Mandal to the petitioner and in respect of remaining Ac.10.22 cents of land, respondent No.4 was directed to evict the respondent No.6 or any other person from Ac.10.22 cents of land and take over the said land and restore the same to the Government for onward assignment to the eligible tribe. Aggrieved by the said Order, dated 12.04.2024 passed in C.M.A.No.2 of 2021 by respondent No.2, the petitioner filed Revision before 1^st respondent under Section 6 of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959.

¶52

SRK, J W.P.No.13986 of 2024

¶53

8

¶54

Indisputably, the petitioner, along with the present Writ

¶55

Petition, filed I.A.No.1 of 2024 seeking to direct the respondent Nos.4 and 5 not to evict the petitioner from the land of an extent of Ac.10.22 cents in Sy.No.80 of Dhanyampalem village, Addateegala Mandal of Alluri Sitha Rama Raju District. This Court, vide Order, dated 05.07.2024 passed the Order, which reads thus:

¶56

“Considering the submissions made by both the learned counsel, there shall be an interim direction, until further orders as prayed for.”

¶57

Apparently, the Revision is pending before 1^st respondent. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Tribal Welfare, on instructions, submitted that the official respondents never visited the lands in the scheduled area and tried to dispossess the petitioner from the land in the scheduled area. The official respondents succinctly made statement to the extent that they are not trying to evict the petitioner from the land in the scheduled area. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the interim Order has been passed by this Court on 05.07.2024 directing respondents 4 and 5 not to evict the petitioner from the land of an extent of Ac.3.00 cents out of Ac.13.21 cents in Sy.No.80 of Dhanyampalem village, Addateegala Mandal, Alluri

¶58

SRK, J W.P.No.13986 of 2024

¶59

9

¶60

Sitha Rama Raju District. Keeping in view of the statement made by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Tribal Welfare representing respondent Nos.1 to 3 that the official respondents are not trying to evict the petitioner from the land in the scheduled area, the interim Order, dated 05.07.2024 passed by this Court has been made absolute till the disposal of the Revision pending before respondent No.1.

¶61

With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶62

Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall also stand closed.

¶63

JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY

¶64

14^th August, 2025. DNB

Mamidi Penta Reddy v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mamidi Penta Reddy v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.C.Ganganna Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kambidi Chinna Babu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Abm Aided Primary and High School Vs the State of Ap

Karri Visweswara Reddy Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Madala Venkata Siva Koteswara Rao Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Katragadda Krishnaveni Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh