Disposed¶41

J. Lakshmi v. The state of A.P.

Andhra Pradesh HC15 Jun 2026WP/15147/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Article 226 writ petition, Andhra Pradesh High Court, Amaravati; W.P. No. 15147 of 2018; V. Sujatha, J.; house site patta assignment (Proceedings No.9/2004 dated 08.07.2004); assigned house sites Ac. 0-02 cents each in R.S.No.27, Eathakota village, Ravulapalem Mandal, East Godavari; threatened eviction by Tahsildar without notice; writ of mandamus; due process of law; disposal on Revenue instructions that no eviction proceedings initiated; direction not to interfere with possession without due process; no order as to costs; pending IAs closed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with a direction that the respondents shall not interfere with the petitioners' possession over the subject house sites without following due process of law; no order as to costs; pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand closed. ¶41

J. Lakshmi Vs The state of A.P. — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶41

Issue for consideration

Whether the action of the 3rd respondent in making attempts to evict the petitioners from their assigned house sites (Ac. 0-02 cents each in R.S.No.27 of Eathakota village) without any notice or due process of law is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional, and whether the respondents can be restrained from dispossessing the petitioners except by following due process of law.

¶20

Court's answer

On the instructions of the 3rd respondent furnished in court (Ref:A/243/2026, dated 16.06.2026), the apprehension of the petitioners was based on a presumed possibility of interference; no eviction proceedings had been initiated and, as recorded by the Court, there is no interference by the Revenue Authorities into the subject house sites allotted in favour of the petitioners.

¶39

Ratio / Principle

Instead of keeping the writ petition pending, the Court disposed of it by directing the respondents not to interfere with the petitioners' possession over the subject house sites without following due process of law.

¶40

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Andhra Pradesh High Court at Amaravati (V. Sujatha, J.), in W.P. No. 15147 of 2018, disposed of a writ petition under Article 226 filed by two assignees of house site pattas (Ac. 0-02 cents each in R.S.No.27 of Eathakota Village, Ravulapalem Mandal, East Godavari District), granted vide Proceedings No.9/2004, dated 08.07.2004, who alleged that the Tahsildar, Ravulapalem Mandal was making attempts to evict them without notice or due process of law. In court, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue furnished instructions of the 3rd respondent (Ref:A/243/2026, dated 16.06.2026) stating that the apprehension rested on a presumed possibility of interference, that no eviction proceedings had been initiated and that no record of any attempt to dispossess the petitioners existed. Recording that there was no interference by the Revenue Authorities into the subject house sites, the Court, rather than keeping the petition pending, directed the respondents not to interfere with the petitioners' possession over the subject house sites without following due process of law, made no order as to costs, and closed pending interlocutory applications as a sequel.

¶1

[3333]

¶2

APHC010332522018

¶3

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

¶4

TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 15147/2018

¶8

Between:

¶9

J. LAKSHMI, W/O VENKATARAO, AGE 47 YEARS, OCC, AGRICULTURAL COOLIE, R/O. D.NO.6-24, EATHAKOTA VILLAGE, RAVULAPALEM MANDAL, E.G.DT., A.P.

¶10

SAGI RAMA SRINIVASA RAJU, S/O BANGARRAJU, AGE 52 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O. D.NO.6-24, EATHAKOTA VILLAGE, RAVULAPALEM MANDAL, E.G.DT., A.P.

¶11

...PETITIONER(S)

¶12

AND

¶13

THE STATE OF A P, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTURU DISTRICT, A.P.

¶14

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT KAKINADA

¶15

THE TAHASILDAR, RAVULAPALEM MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.,

¶16

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶17

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 toto issue a writ, order or a direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus to declare the action of 3d respondent in making attempts to evict us from our respective lands in an extent of Ac,0-02 cents each in R.S.No.27 of Eathakota village, Ravulapalem Mandal, E.G.Dt.. without

¶18

¶19

VS,J W.P.No.15147 of 2018

¶20

there being any notice or following due process of law, is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently direct the 3rd respondent not to dispossess the petitioner from the respective lands in an extent of Ac,0-02 cents each in R.S.No.27 of Eathakota village, Ravulapalem Mandal, East Godavari District without following due process of law pass

¶21

IA NO: 1 OF 2018

¶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 3rd respondent not to dispossess the petitioner the petitioner from the respective lands in an extent of Ac,0- 02 cents each in R.S.No.27 of Eathakota village, Ravulapalem Mandal, East Godavari District without following due process of law, pending disposal of the main Writ petition, and pass

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶24

1.N RAVI PRASAD

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶26

1.GP FOR REVENUE (AP)

¶27

The Court made the following:

¶28

¶29

VS,J W.P.No.15147 of 2018

¶30

ORDER:

¶31

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

¶32

“….to issue a writ, order or a direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus to declare the action of the 3^rd respondent in making attempts to evict us from our respective lands in an extent of Ac. 0-02 cents each in R.S.No.27 of Eathakota village, Ravulapalem Mandal, E.G. Dt. without there being any notice or following due process of law, is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently direct the 3^rd respondent not to dispossess the petitioner from the respective lands in an extent of Ac. 0-02 cents each in R.S.No.27 of Eathakota village, Ravulapalem Mandal, East Godavari District without following due process of law….”

¶33

The case of the petitioners is that they have been assigned house sites

¶34

to an extent of Ac.0-02 cents each in R.S.No.27 of Eathakota Village, Ravulaplaem Mandal vide proceedings No.9/2004, dated 08.07.2004. Since the grant of the said assignment of house site pattas by the then 3^rd respondent, they have been in continuous possession and enjoyment of their respective extents of land by constructing houses. While the things stood thus, the 3^rd respondent, under the influence of some third parties, was making attempts to evict the petitioners from their subject properties and, therefore, the petitioners are constrained to file the present writ petition.

¶35

Today, when the matter came up for hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue has furnished a copy of the instructions of

¶36

¶37

VS,J W.P.No.15147 of 2018

¶38

the 3^rd respondent vide Ref:A/243/2026, dated 16.06.2026, wherein it is specifically stated that the apprehension expressed by the petitioners in the present writ petition is solely based on a presumed possibility of interference and not on any actual action initiated by the Revenue Authorities. It is also stated that no proceedings have been initiated by their office seeking eviction of the petitioners from the subject house sites. Further, no record is available in their office indicating any attempt by the Revenue Department to dispossess the petitioners from their alleged assigned sites.

¶39

As per the instructions of the 3^rd respondent, it appears that there is no interference by the Revenue Authorities into the subject house sites allotted in favour of the petitioners.

¶40

In view of the same, instead of keeping the writ petition pending, this Court feels it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by directing the respondents not to interfere with the petitioners’ possession over the subject house sites without following due process of law.

¶41

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

¶42

As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.

¶43

¶44

Dated 16.06.2026 KGR

J. Lakshmi v. The state of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

J. Lakshmi v. The state of A.P.

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

G Ramu Vs R Pravana Murthy

Kcl - Jccg Joint Venture, Vs Sri G Sai Prasad

Smt Kolli Rani, Vs The state of Andhra Pradesh

Meesala Prabhavathi Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

B.P. John Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

N. Bhupathi Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh