Talluri Pavan Kumar, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENTOF ANDHRA PRADESH, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522237.

¶15

THE COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, GUNTUR - 522004.

¶16

THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, GUNTUR - 522004.

¶17

THE TAHSILDHAR, MEDIKONDURU MANDAL, MEDIKONDURU, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522438.

¶18

GADDAM NARASIMHA RAO, S/O LATE SEETARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, R/O NEAR RICE MILL, PERECHERLA VILLAGE, MEDIKONDURU MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522009.

¶19

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶20

2

¶21

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 topleased to issue a Writ order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the 4th Respondent in issuing the impugned notice/reminder in Proceedings No.214/2025-DT, dated 17- 04-2026, and the consequential action of the Respondent No.4 and their staff in interfering with the petitioners peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property admeasuring an extent of 484 Sq. Yards and 137 Sq. Yards, in all totaling 621 Sq. Yards, situated in Door No.1-69, D.No.212, Assessment No.67, Perecherla Village, Medikonduru Mandal, Guntur District, despite the dispute being purely private property and despite pendency of O.S. No. 163 of 2026 on the file of the Court of the PrI. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sattenapalli, as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, violative of principles of natural justice and Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, and consequently set aside the same and pass

¶22

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶23

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 pleased to direct the 4th Respondent and his staff not to interfere with the Petitioners’ peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property admeasuring an extent of 484 Sq. Yards and 137 Sq. Yards, in all totaling 621 Sq. Yards, situated in Door No. 1-69, D.No.212, Assessment No.67, Perecherla Village, Medikonduru Mandal, Guntur District, during the pendency of the Writ Petition before this Hon’ble Court and to pass

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶25

1.VENKATA DURGA RAO ANANTHA

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶27

1.GP FOR REVENUE

¶28

3

¶29

The Court made the following Order:

¶30

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent Nos.1 to 4. The issuance of notice to the 5^th respondent is dispensed with, as no prejudice would cause to him even if it is disposed of in his absence.

¶31

This writ petition is filed questioning the action of the 4^th respondent in issuing the impugned notice/ reminder in Proceedings No.214/2025-DT, dated 17.04.2026 and the consequential action of the 4^th respondent and their staff in interfering with the petitioner’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property in an extent of 484 Sq. Yds. and 137 Sq. Yds. in all totaling 621 Sq. Yds. situated in Door No.1-69, D.No.212, Assessment No.67, Perecherla Village, Medikonduru Mandal, Guntur District, despite the dispute being purely private property and despite pendency of O.S.No.163 of 2026 on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sattenapalli.

¶32

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that on the complaint given by the 5^th respondent herein, the 4^th respondent issued the impugned notice dated 17.04.2026. For which the petitioners submitted their explanation dated 20.04.2026. Without considering the same, at the behest of the 5^th respondent, the 4^th respondent is showing highhanded action threatening to dispossess the petitioners from the subject land.

¶33

4

¶34

On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 4 submits that, since it is only a notice dated 17.04.2026 of the 4^th respondent, the explanation of the petitioners would be considered by the said authority following the due procedure.

¶35

In view of the above said facts and circumstances, the petitioners are permitted to submit their additional explanation if any in continuation of the earlier explanation dated 20.04.2026 enclosing all the necessary documents in support of their claim to the above said notice of the 4^th respondent dated 17.04.2026 within a period of three (3) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. On receipt of such representation from the petitioners, the 4^th respondent shall proceed with the necessary enquiry pursuant to the above said notice dated 17.04.2026 strictly in accordance with law by hearing all the parties concerned including the petitioners and the 5^th respondent giving due opportunity, upon verification of the records and the subject land covered under the impugned notice of the 4^th respondent dated 17.04.2026, appropriate decision shall be taken on its own merits as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three (3) months thereafter. Pending the above said enquiry, there shall be an order of status quo as on today to be maintained with respect to the subject land as covered under the impugned notice of the 4^th respondent dated 17.04.2026.

¶36

5

¶37