Dogiparthy Meera Valli Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in fh exircumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ or direction or order more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent authorities in taking steps to evict the petitioner from his agricultural land to an extent of Ac. 5.00 cents in Sy. No. 567-1A. Basinepalle, Bestavaripeta Mandal, Prakasam District by changing the revenue records, at the behest of the unofficial respondents herein as illegal, arbitrary, capricious, in violation of principles of Natural justice and further in violation of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent authorities not to evict the petitioner from his agricultural land to an extent of Ac. 5.00 cents in Sy. No. 567-1 A, Basinepalle, Bestavaripeta Mandal, Prakasam District, without following due process of law.

¶23

.. fh

¶24

lA NO: 1 OF

¶25

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated m the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent authorities not to evict the petitioner from his agricultural land to an extent of Ac. 5.00 cents in Sy. No. 567-1 A, Basinepalle, Bestavaripeta Mandal, Prakasam District by changing the revenue records, pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶26

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SARANU PHANI TEJA

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: GP FOR REVENUE

¶28

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 4 to 6: —

¶29

The Court made the following:

4^

•• •• ±I •• ••

APHC010159342025

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

¶34

[3329]

¶35

WEDNESDAY ,THE SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 8495/2025

¶36

Between: Dogiparthy Meera Valli ...PETITIONER

¶37

AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and ...RESPONDENT{S) Others Counsel for the Petitioner; 1.SARANU PHANI TEJA Counsel for the Respondent(S); 1.GP FOR REVENUE This Court made the following ORDER:-

¶38

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the

¶39

Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

¶40

“..to issue a Writ or direction or order more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent authorities in taking steps to evict the petitioner from his agricultural land to an extent of Ac. 5.00 cents in Sy.No.5671A Basinepalle, Bestavaripeta Mandal, Prakasam District by changing the revenue records at the behest of the unofficial respondents herein as illegal arbitrary capricious in violation of principles of Natural justice and further in violation of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent authorities not to evict the petitioner from his

¶41

4k

¶42

2

¶43

agricultural land to an extent of Ac.5.00 cents in Sy. No. 567-1A, Basinepalle, Bestavaripeta Mandal, Prakasam District without following due process of law and pass...”

¶44

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject agricultural land, admeasuring to an extent of Ac.5.00 cents in Sy.No.567-1A of Basinepalle village, Bestavaripeta Mandal, Prakasam District, by cultivating crops for more than 35 years. The petitioner was granted patta by the Government, and his name is reflected in the revenue records. Further, he was issued a Pattadar Passbook, 1-B Registered, and Adangal in respect of the subject land. While so, the unofficial respondents, i.e., respondent Nos. 4 and 5, are interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property without having any right, title, or interest in the same. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner instituted a suit in O.S. No. 1 of 2024, along with I.A. No. 1906 of 2023, before the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Giddalur, against respondent Nos. 4 and 5. After hearing the matter, the Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favour of the petitioner. Subsequently, the 3rd respondent issued a notice dated 18.02.2025 to the petitioner, stating that, as per RSR records, the subject land is recorded as reserve forest and directed

¶45

3

¶46

%

¶47

the petitioner to appear before his office with relevant^documents. The petitioner complied and submitted all relevant documents supporting his claim over the subject property. However,^evenafter submission of the necessary documents, the 3rd respondent allegedly at the behest of the unofficial respondents, is attempting to evict the petitioner from the subject land and is trying to alter the revenue records which currently stand in the petitioner’s name. Hence, this writ petition.

¶48

On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents furnished written instructions dated 27.03.2025 wherein it is stated that:”(2) A local person namely Sri Burn Venkateswarly S/o. Somaiah filed complaint petition alleging that the government forest land covered by Sy.Nos.5671A to an extent of Ac. 5.00 cents was encroached by Sri Dogiparthy meeravali and he managed to get pattadar passbook and also mutated in web land in his favour and managed irregular mutation and requested to enquire into the matter and cancelled the entry.

¶49

(3) As per list of prohibited property under section 22A (1) (b) of Registration Act, of Basinepalli village, Sy.No.567-1A, Ac.5.68 cents is recorded as belong to forest department.

¶50

4

¶51

{4) In view of the above allegations, the tahsildar, Bestavaripeta issued enquiry notice directing petitioner to filed his documents and showing his title over the subject land vide notice dated 18.02.2025.

¶52

(5) It is submitted that the Tahsildar Bestavaripeta has not insisted the petitioner to vacate the subject lands.

¶53

In view of the law declared by the Apex Court in^“RameGowda (dead) by LRs. v. M.Varadappa Naidu (Dead) by L.Rs. , when the petitioner is in settled possession and enjoyment of the property, he cannot be dispossessed, without following due process of law. Therefore, the respondents are directed not to interfere^withand dispossess the petitioner from the subject property, except by due process of law.

¶54