Polisetty Surendra Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

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 Writ, or Direction especially one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Proceeding Roc.A.248/2019, dated 27-11-2019 of the 3rd respondent asking the petitioner to submit explanation to the inherited properties admeasuring an extent of Ac.0.65 cents in Sy.No.708/ 1 and Ac.0.92 cents in Sy.No.787/4, situated in Yerraguntlapalle village, Piler Mandal, Chittoor District and trying to evict the petitioner highhandedly from the said properties without following due process of law is illegal, arbitrary, highhanded and violation of principles of natural justice and consequently

¶17

2

¶18

VS,J W.P.No.20025 of 2019

¶19

direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the properties admeasuring an extent of Ac.0.65 cents in Sy.No.708/1 and Ac.0.92 cents in Sy.No.787/4, situated in Yerraguntlapalle village, Piler Mandal, Chittoor District

¶20

IA NO: 1 OF 2019

¶21

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 not to dispossess the petitioner from the properties admeasuring an extent of Ac.0.65 cents in Sy.No.708/ 1 and Ac.0.92 cents in Sy.No.787/4, situated in Yerraguntlapalle village, Piler Mandal, Chittoor District, pending disposal of the Writ petition before this Honourable court,

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶23

1.VUTUPALLI RAJANNA

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶25

1.GP FOR REVENUE (AP)

¶26

The Court made the following:

¶27

3

¶28

VS,J W.P.No.20025 of 2019

¶29

ORDER:

¶30

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

¶31

“….to issue Writ or Direction especially one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Proceeding Roc.A.248/2019, dated 27.11.2019 of the 3^rd respondent asking the petitioner to submit explanation to the inherited properties admeasuring an extent of Ac. 0.65 cents in Sy.No.708/1 and Ac. 0.92 cents in Sy.No.787/4, situated in Yerraguntlapalle village, Piler Mandal, Chittoor District and trying to evict the petitioner highhandedly from the said properties without following due process of law is illegal, arbitrary, highhanded and violation of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the properties admeasuring an extent of Ac. 0.65 cents in Sy.No.708/1 and Ac. 0.92 cents in Sy.No.787/4 situated in Yerraguntlapalle village, Piler Mandal, Chittoor District….”

¶32

The petitioner is the possessor and pattadar of the property admeasuring an extent of Ac. 0.65 cents in Sy.No.708/1A, Ac.1.37 cents in Sy.No.733/1A, Ac.1.11 cents in Sy.No.742/1, Ac.0.32 cents in Sy.No.784/1A and Ac.0.92 cents in Sy.No.787/4A situated in Yerraguntlapalle Village, Piler Mandal, Chittoor District. Out of the said properties, the petitioner inherited the lands admeasuring Ac.0.65 cents in Sy.No.708/1A, Ac.0.32 cents in Sy.No.784/1A and Ac.0.92 cents in Sy.No.787/4A from his ancestors, and the remaining properties were purchased by him.

¶33

The grievance of the petitioner is that, while the petitioner has been in possession of the scheduled properties, on 27.11.2019, the 3^rd respondent

¶34

4

¶35

VS,J W.P.No.20025 of 2019

¶36

issued two show-cause notices vide proceedings Roc.A/248/2019, dated 27.11.2019 under Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (POT) Act, 1977 and the Rules 2007, stating that the petitioner has violated Section 3(c) of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (POT) Act, 1977 and the Rules 2007, and is enjoying the assigned lands, and called upon the petitioner to submit an explanation in person within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said notices as to why he should not be evicted from the assigned lands and as to why the said properties should not be resumed to the Government. Aggrieved by the said notices, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition.

¶37

When the writ petition came up for admission on 10.12.2019, this Court passed the following interim order:

¶38

“Till further orders, the respondents are directed to maintain status-quo.”

¶39

Today, when the matter came up for hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue has furnished a copy of the instructions of the 3^rd respondent vide Roc.A/248/2019, dated 15.06.2026, wherein it is stated that, as per the Village Accounts of Yerraguntlapalle Village, the lands in Sy.No.708/1 admeasuring Ac.0.65 cents and Sy.No.787/4 admeasuring Ac.0.92 cents were originally assigned to one N.Narayana under DKT patta. But, however, it was found that the petitioner’s name was recorded in the Webland Adangal of Yerraguntlapalle Village in respect of the subject lands. Upon verification of the records, the then Tahsildar issued Form-I and Form-II

¶40

5

¶41

VS,J W.P.No.20025 of 2019

¶42

notices under Section 3 of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977, for the alleged violation of the provisions of the said Act. It is further contended in the said instructions that the allegation made by the petitioner that the respondent authorities are attempting to dispossess or evict him from the subject lands is incorrect. No action of eviction has been initiated against the petitioner; however, only notices were issued by the then Tahsildar for initiating statutory proceedings under the provisions of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977. It is also contended that the petitioner, without submitting any explanation to the said notices, has straight away approached this Court.

¶43

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue.

¶44

On a perusal of the impugned notices, it can be observed that the notices under Form-I and Form-II were issued to the petitioner in respect of the lands in Sy.Nos.787/4 and 708/1, calling upon him to submit his explanation within fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of the said notices as to why he should not be evicted from the assigned lands and why the said lands should not be resumed to the Government. However, the said notices do not speak of dispossession or eviction from the said land and, admittedly, the notices are only in the nature of show-cause notices initiating statutory proceedings under the Act. As rightly contended by the 3^rd respondent in the

¶45

6

¶46

VS,J W.P.No.20025 of 2019

¶47

written instructions, the petitioner, instead of submitting his explanation, has straightaway approached this Court.

¶48

In view of the same, instead of going into the merits of the case, this Court feels it appropriate to direct the petitioner to submit an explanation to the impugned notices in Roc.A/248/2019, dated 27.11.2019, within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, along with necessary documents to prove his title over the scheduled properties. Upon receiving the said explanation, the 3^rd respondent shall consider the same by giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. The said process shall be completed within a period of six (6) weeks thereafter. Till completion of the said exercise, both the parties shall maintain status quo over the scheduled properties.

¶49

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

¶50

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

¶51

¶52

JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Dated 15.06.2026 KGR

Polisetty Surendra v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Polisetty Surendra 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

Peddi Reddy Eashwara Reddy Vs v. Rama Krishna Irs

Reddy Lakshmana Rao Vs K Vetriselvi

V. Rajeswara Rao Vs Y. Sri Lakshmi, IAS

Kotapati Prabhakar Vs G. Sai Prasad, IAS

Smt Kolli Rani, Vs The state of Andhra Pradesh

Kcl - Jccg Joint Venture, Vs Sri G Sai Prasad