Kammaganti Naga Mani Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

I

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVAJ^^4^ .
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
■H'\
t!
WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTH DAYOF MARCH iw W ^ a/
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 4374 OF 2025

¶6

Between:

¶7

Kammagenti Naga Mani, W/o Naga Malleawararao, Aged 36 years, Coolie, R/o.D.No.1/94-B, Akumarru Village, Guduru Mandal, Krishna District.

¶8

Karumanchi Parimala Kumari, W/o Arjunrao, Aged 54 years, Coolie, R/o.D.No.2/151, Akumarru Village, Guduru Mandal, Krishna District.

¶9

Dasari Venkateswararao, S/o Chintaiah, Aged 64 years, Coolie, R/o.D.No.2/147, Akumarru Village, Guduru Mandal, Krishna District.

¶10

Karumanchi Venkatakumari, W/o Prasad, Aged 50 years, Coolie, R/O.D.No.2/149, Akumarru Village, Guduru Mandal, Krishna District.

¶11

Marthi Nalini, W/o Adisesharao, Aged 67 years. Coolie, R/o.D.No. 1-37, Akumarru Village, Guduru Mandal, Krishna District.

¶12

Kammaganti Mangarao, S/o Saidulu, Aged 59 years. Coolie, R/o.D.No.2/154, Akumarru Village, Guduru Mandal, Krishna District.

¶13

7, Konda Palli Kamala, W/o Venkata Narayana, Aged 64 years. Coolie, R/o.D.No.2/155, Akumarru Village, Guduru Mandal, Krishna District.

¶14

Kammaganti Nagavenkataramana, S/o Venkateswararao Aged 31 years. Coolie, R/o.D.No.1/93, Akumarru Village, Guduru Mandal, Krishna District.

¶15

Bella Savitramma, W/o Veera Raghavulu, Aged 63 years. Coolie, R/o.D.No.1-35, Akumarru Village, Guduru Mandal, Krishna District.

¶16

10. Bojjagaani Sravanthi @Karumanchi Sravanthi W/o Kameswara Rao, aged 23 years. Coolie, ’ R/o.D.No.2/151, Akumarru Village, Guduru Mandal, Krishna District
11. Bethi Kamala, W/o Rambabu. Aged 44 years, Coolie, R/o.D.No.2-31, Akumarru Village, Guduru Mandal, Krishna District.
12. Karumanchi Subbarao. S/o Maraiah, Aged 51 years. Coolie. R/o.D.No.2-150, Akumarru Village, Guduru Mandal, Krishna District.
13. Bolla Sithamaha Lakshmi, W/o Jaganmohanarao Aged 68 years. Coolie, R/o.D.No.1/46A. Akumarru Village, Guduru Mandal, Krishna District.
14. Seelam Rajeswari, W/o Upendra, Aged 29 years. Coolie, R/o.D.No.2-139, Akumarru Village, Guduru Mandal, Krishna District.
15. Pinamala Tanuja, W/o.Shanmukaraj, Aged about 39 years. Coolie, R/o.D.Nci.7/36, Akumarru Village, Guduru Mandal, Krishna District.
16. Pamu Jayapal Mukarji, S/o. Paidaiah, Aged 44 years. Coolie, R/o.D.No.2-141-A, Akumarru Village, Guduru Mandal, Krishna District.	PETITIONERS
And
1. The State ofAndhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi Amaravathi, Guntur District.
2. The District Collector, Krishna, Machilipatnam.
3. The Executive Engineer, P.R.I. Division, ZP Office, Krishna, Machilipatnam.
4. The Assistant Executive Engineer, P.R.I. Division, M.P.D. Office, Guduru Village, GuduruMandal.KrishnaDistrict.

¶17

The Tahsildar, Guduru Mandal, Krishna District.

¶18

... RESPONDENTS

¶19

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, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action, things^anddeedsof Respondents in not allowing the Petitioners to proceed^with the further construction of their respective houses in Y.S.R. Jagananna Colony in R.S.N0.21/4B of Akumarru Village, Guduru Mandal, Krishna District, further not completing the Cement Road from Chakinam Cheruvu to Arujunarao Colony (Y.S.R. Jagananna Colony), which is illegal, irregular, unjust, discrimination, arbitrary, unconstitutional, against to the Principles of Natural Justice and in violation of Articles 14, 16, 19, 21, 300-A of Constitution of India consequently direct the Respondent Nos.1 to 5^{nottointerferewiththe} construction of houses of respective Petitioners situated in R.S.No.21/4B, Akumarru Village of Guduru Mandal, Krishna District, further by directing the Respondents to complete the Cement Road from Chakinam^Cheruvu to Arujunarao Colony(Y.S.R. Jagananna Colony). lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶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 to direct the Respondent Nos.1 to 5 not to interfere with the construction of houses of respective Petitioners, constructing in Y.S.R. Jagananna Colony, situated in R.S.No.21/4B, Akumarru Village of Guduru Mandal, Krishna District pending disposal of Writ Petition.

¶21

lA NO: 2 OF 2025

¶22

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 to direct the Respondent Nos.1 to 5 to complete the laying of the Cement Road from Chakinam Cheruvu to Arujuna Rao Colony (Y.S.R. Jagananna Colony) as per proceedings in Rc.No.TO/ZP 15 th FINANCE BASIC GRANT/2024 dated 26-06-2024 issued by 3'"^ Respondent pending disposal of Writ Petition.

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI NARASIMHA RAO GUDISEVA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1, 2 & 5: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 & 4: GP FOR PANCHAYAT^RAJ&

¶24

RURAL DEVELOPMENT

¶25

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶26

APHC010079012025

¶27

SM0

¶28

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶29

[3329]

¶30

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶31

WEDNESDAY ,THE FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶32

PRESENT

¶33

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶34

WRIT PETITION NO: 4374/2025

¶35

Between:

¶36

Kammaganti Naga Mani and Others

¶37

...PETITIONER(S)

¶38

AND

¶39

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others

¶40

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶41

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶42

NARASIMHA RAO GUDISEVA

¶43

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶44

1.GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV

¶45

2.GP FOR REVENUE

¶46

The Court made the following:

¶47

2

¶48

I

¶49

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶50

WRIT PETITION NO: 4374/2025

¶51

ORDER:

¶52

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the^Constitution of the India seeking the following reliefs:-

¶53

“to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly^one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action, things and deeds of respondents in not allowing the petitioners to proceed with the further construction^oftheir respective houses in Y.S.R Jagananna Colony in R.S.N0.21/4B of Akumarru Village, Guduru Mandal, Krishna District, further not completing the Cement Road from Chakinam Cheruvu to Arujunarao Colony (Y.S.R. Jagananna Colony) which is illegal, irregular, unjust, discrimination, arbitrary, unconstitutional, against to the principles of natural justice and in violation of Articles 14, 16, 19, 21, 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent Nos.1 to 5 not to interfere with^the construction of houses of respective petitioners situatedⁱⁿ R.S.N0.21/4B, Akumarru Village of Guduru Mandal, Krishna District, further by directing the respondents to complete^the Cement Road from Chakinam Cheruvu to Arujunarao Colony (Y.S.R. Jagananna Colony) and pass such other order.

¶54

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents.

¶55

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners herein are houseless poor persons and they were granted house sites under the scheme of Navaratnalu in a layout formed by respondent No.1 in R.S.No.21/4B of Akumarru Village, Gudur Mandal, Krishna District. After alienation of the said plots infavour of

¶56

3

¶57

the petitioners under the scheme, the petitioners herein are proceeding with the constructions as per the object^ofthescheme. While things stood thus, the respondents herein without^issuingany notice and without following the due procedure, they^{areinterfering} with the construction of the petitioners on the ground^thatoutof55 allotted house sites at the subject colony at persons who were Akumarru Village, the petitioners herein are proceeding with the construction. So far, the respondents neither issued any notice stating that the petitioners are ineligible persons to hold such a house site pattas nor issued any notice for conducting^survey.Inthe absence of the same, the respondents cannot restrain^{thepetitioner} from proceeding with the construction. Hence, the present Writ Petition.

¶58

On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for^the respondents furnished written instructions dated 20.02.2025^issued by the 5‘^ respondent, wherein it is stated as follows;

¶59

“Basing on the complaint petition, this authority has determined to enquire into the allegations and began the enquiry on the ground physically. The enquiry was carried out in a piecemeal manner and the enquiry has not yet been completed. Since, asking the beneficiaries about their particulars, with a view to presumption,^the petitioners as much as 15 approached the Hon’ble High Court by filing this Writ Petition. After receiving^the petitioner’s affidavit, the enquiry work has been

¶60

4

¶61

Stopped, except that, no instructions have issued to^the beneficiaries to stop the construction of their houses.

¶62

Further, the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, A.P., in circular

¶63

RefNo.Assn.1/2690698/2025, dated 04.02.2025, has issued instructions to verify the house site pattas distributed under NPI in the proforma with reference^to the beneficiaries on genuineness and need to be cancelled if found ineligible and update the re verification of genuineness of eligibility of house site pattas beneficiaries and it as a Special Drive and ensure the re-verification process is completed within^a fortnight. On-line data entry provision (with MIS)^willbe enabled for the verification process. ”

¶64

Learned Government Pleader further submits that the respondents herein are making enquiry with regard to the eligibility of the petitioners whether they can hold the pattas or not and really they were classified as houseless poor persons or not. If the petitioners are houseless poor persons and they are eligible for possession, ownership and enjoyment of the house site pattas, the subject construction cannot be interfered by the respondents.

¶65

Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government^Pleaderfor the respondents, this Court is of the considered view^that it is an admitted fact the petitioners were alienated the subject^housesite pattas under the Navaratnalu scheme. Further it appears^thatthe

¶66

5

¶67

petitioners were identified as eligible persons and accordingly, the further observed that \A/hile conducting pattas were granted. It is enquiry by the respondents regarding eligibility of the petitioners, the not be interfered, such an enquiry should be other allottees may conducted as per the procedure contemplated under the scheme as well as the law. Till the enquiry is completed as per^{theprocedures} contemplated, the petitioners’ possession and enjoyment cannot be interfered by the respondents.

¶68

stated above. When the petitioners 7. In view of the reasons are in settled possession and enjoyment of the property, they of iaw in cannot be dispossessed, without following due process Rame Gowda view of the law declared by the Apex Court in (dead) by L.Rs. v. M.Varadappa Naidu (Dead) by L.Rs. fit and appropriate to dispose of the Therefore, this Court deems writ petition directing the respondents to conduct survey or enquiry, after issuingino notice and follow due procedure as contemplated without following the same, the respondents under the law and with the peaceful possession and enjoyment cannot be interfered and also the construction activities of the petitioners. the Writ Petition is disposed of. 8. With the above directions There shall be no order as to costs.

¶69

2004 (1) see 769

¶70

6

¶71

As a sequel miscellaneous application, pending, if any, shall

¶72

also stand closed.

¶73

//TRUE COPY//

¶74

Sd/- N. NAGAMMA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SE OFFICER