Disposed¶45

G.Peda Bhadram, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC17 Feb 2026WP/16248/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition under Article 226 - threatened eviction of Scheduled Tribe agriculturists from scheduled area land (Ac.2.50 cents and Ac.2.53 cents, Sy.No.16/5, Kothurupadu Village, Addateegala Mandal, East Godavari District) - no prior notice - no action under A.P. Scheduled Area Land Transfer Regulations - Articles 14 and 21 - interim status quo order dated 10.06.2015 - no counter affidavit - writ disposed with liberty to respondents to act after due process of law - no costs.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition disposed of with directions: (i) Respondents at liberty to take action against the Petitioners, if their possession is illegal and in violation of the regulations, only after following due process of law; (ii) no order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the case to stand closed. ¶45

G.Peda Bhadram, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

APHC010669002015

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

[3460]

¶5

WEDNESDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 16248/2015

¶9

Between:

¶10

G.PEDA BHADRAM,, S/O.LATE RAJULU, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE,

¶11

G.APPARAO,, S/O.LATE RAJULU, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE, PETITIONERS ARE R/O.59, KOTHURUPADU VILLAGE, ADDATEEGALA MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

¶12

...PETITIONER(S)

¶13

AND

¶14

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRL. SECRETARY, TRIBAL WELARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT AT HYDERABAD.

¶15

THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTORT W, RAMPACHODAVARAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

¶16

THE TAHSILDAR ADDATEEGALA MANDAL EAST, GODAVARI DISTRICT.

¶17

THE SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR T W, ADDATEEGALA MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT

¶18

¶19

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶20

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 appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 2 to 4 in seeking evict the petitioners from their lands to an extent of Ac.2.50 cents and Ac.2.53 cents respectively in Sy.No.16/5 situated in 59, Kothurupadu Village, Addateegala Mandal, East Godavari District as wholly illegal, arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice and also invilative of Art.14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consegently direct the respondents 2 to 4 not to evict the petitioners from the above mentioned lands in the interest of justice and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶21

IA NO: 1 OF 2015(WVMP 3395 OF 2015

¶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 vacate the orders dated: 10.06.2015 in W.P.M.P.No.21129 of 2014 in W.P.No. 16248 of 2015

¶23

IA NO: 2 OF 2015(WPMP 21129 OF 2015

¶24

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 respondents 2 to 4 not to evict the petitioners from their lands to an extent of Ac.2.50 cents and Ac.2.53 cents respectively in Sy.No.16/5 situated in 59,Kothurupadu Village, Addateegala Mandal, East Godavari District in the interest of justice and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶25

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶26

¶27

1.K VENKATESH

¶28

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶29

1.GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE (AP)

¶30

2.GP FOR REVENUE (AP)

¶31

The Court made the following:

¶32

¶33

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶34

W.P.No.16248 of 2015

¶35

O R DE R:

¶36

This Writ Petition is filed to declare the action of Respondents 2 to 4 in trying to evict the Petitioners from their land to an extent of Ac.2.50 cents and Ac.2.53 cents respectively in Sy.No.16/5 situated in 59, Kothurupadu Village, Addateegala Mandal, East Godavari District, without issuing any prior notice as illegal and arbitrary.

¶37

The facts leading to filing of the Writ Petition are as follows:

¶38

The Petitioners claim to be the owners and possessors of the above-mentioned extent of land by virtue of inheritance. It is stated that the Petitioners belong to the Scheduled Tribe community and at the time of filing of the Writ Petition, they had raised cotton crop. It is stated that the Respondent Nos. 2 to 4, without initiating any action under the A.P. Scheduled Area Land Transfer Regulations or any provisions of law, were making efforts to evict the Petitioners from the scheduled land, and hence, the present Writ Petition.

¶39

This Court on 10.06.2015 passed an interim order of status

¶40

¶41

quo to be maintained by the parties.

¶42

Learned counsel for the Petitioners relies on the undated

¶43

Village Revenue Record to establish his possession over the schedule land apart from Tax Receipts dated 07.04.1998 and 05.06.2005.

¶44

No counter affidavit is filed.

¶45

Considering the relief sought, the Writ Petition is disposed

¶46

of with the following directions:

¶47

i) The Respondents are at liberty to take action against the Petitioners if the possession of the Petitioners is illegal and in violation of the regulations after following due process of law.

¶48

ii) There shall be no order as to costs.

¶49

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this case shall stand closed.

¶50

__________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J

¶51

Date: 18.02.2026 KLP

G.Peda Bhadram, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Peda Bhadram, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

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

Y. Moulali Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Shaik Reshma Vs Sumith Kumar IAS

H P M High School Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

M/s. Krishnaveni Podupulakshmi Group Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Bandaru Venkata Rama Krishna, Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Sri Padma Committee Aided Primary School, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh