Kamatham Balaji, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

¶1

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

¶2

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

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 6066 OF 2025

¶5

Between:

¶6

Kamatham Balaji, S/o K. Subbaramaiah, Aged about 50 years, Occ Agricultural Cooli, R/o Thangella Village, Marripudi Mandal, Prakasam District. ...Petitioner

¶7

AND

¶8

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by the PrI. Secretary,^Revenue Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District.

¶9

The District Collector, Ongole, Prakasam District.

¶10

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kandukur, Prakasam^District.

¶11

The Tahsildar, Marripudi Mandal, Prakasam District.

¶12

...Respondents

¶13

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 an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring action on part of the 4th respondent is trying to cancel the petitioner house site patta No. 41 arvextent of Ac 0-05 cents in layout No. 567 of Thangella Village, Marripudi Mandal, Prakasam District without issuing any notice and without following due process of law is illegal, arbitrary, violative of the principles of natural justices and offends Articles 14, 21 and 300 A of Constitution of

¶14

India and consequently this Hon'ble court to direct the respondent No.3 and 4 not cancelling the petitioner house site pata^{no.41anextentofAc0-} 05 cents in layout No. 567 of Thangella Village, Marripudi Mandal, Prakasarfi District

¶15

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶16

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 4th respondents not to dispossess of the petitioner house site No.41 an extent of AcO-05 cents in layout No.567 of Thangella Village, Marripudi Mandal, Prakasam District, pending disposal of the main writ petition

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P V VENKATA RAVI SANKAR

¶18

Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 4: GP FOR REVENUE

¶19

The Court made the following: Order

¶20

[3329]

¶21

APHC010114042025

¶22

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶23

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶24

WEDNESDAY .THE TWELFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶25

PRESENT

¶26

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶27

WRIT PETITION NO: 6066/2025

Between:

Kamatham Balaji,

...PETITIONER

AND

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others

¶33

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶34

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶35

P V VENKATA RAVI SANKAR and Dr. P.B Reddy

¶36

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶37

1.GP FOR REVENUE

¶38

The Court made the following:

¶39

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶40

WRIT PETITION NO: 6066/2025

¶41

ORDER:

¶42

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

¶43

of the India seeking the following reliefs:-

¶44

“to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly^one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring action on part of the 4^^ respondent is trying to cancel the petitioner^house site patta No. 41 an extent of Ac. 0.05 cents in layout^{No. 567} of Thangella Village, Marripudi Mandal, Prakasam District without issuing any notice and without following due process of law is illegal, arbitrary, violative of the principles^ofnatural Justices and offends Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently this Hon’ble^courtto direct the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 not to cancel the petitioner’s house site pata No. 41 an extent of Ac.^0.05cents in layout No. 567 of Thangella Village, Marripudi Mandal, Prakasam District and pass such other order.

¶45

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

¶46

learned Government Pleader for the respondents.

¶47

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s parents made an application to the then Tahsildar Kandukur. Later, the then Tahsildar conducted enquiry and granted house site patta in favour of the mother of the petitioner. The petitioner’s parents constructed thatched house in the said premises. After the demise of the petitioner’s mother, the petitioner^hasbeenin possession and enjoyment of the subject property. Now the petitioner intend to construct new house in the said^{housesite.Butto} the utter surprise of the petitioner, without issuing any notice and

¶48

without following the due process, the respondent is trying to cancel the house site patta granted in favour of petitioner’s^mother. He further submits that the petitioner approached the 4*^ respondent and orally requested not to cancel the house site patta.^Butthe4 th respondent did not consider the same. Hence, the present Writ Petition. 4. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for the respondents submits that if the respondents intend to cancel the house site patta, they will follow due process of law.

¶49

Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents and on perusal of the material placed on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present^{WritPetitioncan} be disposed of by directing the respondents not to cancel the subject house site patta, if the petitioner is in possession of the subject property, without following due process of law.

¶50