Disposed

Paila Ramana v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC9 Sept 2026WP/25411/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, allotted 96 sq. yards under a house site patta, challenged the Tahsildar's attempt to dispossess her without notice. The State conceded the allotment but alleged non-completion of construction within the prescribed time. With consent of both sides, the High Court disposed of the writ petition at admission stage, directing the Tahsildar not to interfere with the property without following due process of law.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 4th respondent (Tahsildar) not to interfere with the petitioner's possession of 96 sq. yards in Sy.No.3 covered under House Site Patta Rc.No.130/2023 without following due process of law.

Paila Ramana Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh — Landlord and Tenant | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

[3331]

¶2

APHC010464292026

¶3

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

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 10^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 25411/2026

¶8

Between:

¶9

PAILA RAMANA, W/O PAILA CHINNA RAO, AGED 45 YEARS, OCC. DAILY WAGE LABOUR, RIO BOWLUVADA, ANAKAPALLE MANDAL, ANAKAPALLE DISTRICT, A.P. PIN. 531032

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS., PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, AP SECRETARIAT, VELGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. PIN. 522238.

¶13

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ANAKAPALLE DISTRICT. PIN. 531001.

¶14

THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, BOWLUVADA, ANAKAPALLE MANDAL, ANAKAPALLE DISTRICT, A.P. PIN. 531032.

¶15

THE TAHSILDAR, BOWLUVADA, ANAKAPALLE MANDAL, ANAKAPALLE DISTRICT, A.P. PIN. 531032.

¶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 toissue an order, direction or Writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, declaring the highhanded action of respondent no. 4 in trying to dispossess the petitioner from the house property admeasuring an extent of 96 Sq. Yards in Sy.No. 3 covered under House Site Patta in R.C.no. 130/2023 Dt.19/06/2023 situated at Bowluvada, Anakapalle Mandal, Anakapalle District without issuing any

¶18

Page 2 of 3

¶19

notice and without following due process of law as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and in violation of principles of natural justice Article 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent no. 4 not to dispossess the petitioner from the house property admeasuring an extent of 96 Sq. Yards in Sy.No. 3 covered under House Site Patta in R.C.no. 130/2023 Dt.19/06/2023 situated at Bowluvada, Anakapalle Mandal, Anakapalle District

¶20

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶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 direct the respondent no. 4 not to dispossess the petitioner from the house property admeasuring an extent of 96 Sq. Yards in Sy.No. 3 covered under House Site Patta in R.C.no. 130/2023 Dt.19/06/2023 situated at Bowluvada, Anakapalle Mandal, Anakapalle District without following the procedure prescribed and without issuing notice to the petitioner, pending disposal of the writ petition

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶23

1.SHAIK AFZAL MOHAMMED

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶25

1.GP FOR REVENUE

¶26

The Court made the following:

¶27

ORDER

¶28

The grievance of the petitioner is that the 4^th respondent is attempting to dispossess the petitioner from the house property of an extent of 96 square yards in S.No.3 covered under House Site Patta in Rc.No.130/2023, dated 19.06.2023, situated at Bowluvada, Anakapalle Mandal & District, without issuing any notice and without following due process of law.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was allotted the aforementioned extent of land under the landless poor scheme and she has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. He would

¶30

Page 3 of 3

¶31

submit that the 4^th respondent, without issuing any notice, is attempting to dispossess the petitioner from the said property.

¶32

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondents submitted the written instructions of 4^th respondent-Tahsildar. As seen from the instructions, assignment of land for construction of house in favour of petitioner was not disputed. However, it is stated that the house construction, either by the A.P. State Housing Department or the petitioner, was not completed within the time prescribed. Further, after lapse of three years, the petitioner is trying to construct a house and thus, violated the rules under the A.P. Housing Scheme. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue would submit that the respondent authorities will follow due process of law.

¶33

Given the instructions of the 4^th respondent-Tahsildar, keeping the writ petition and inviting a counter will not serve any purpose.

¶34

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the admission stage with the consent of learned counsel on either side, directing the 4^th respondent not to interfere with an extent of 96 square yards in S.No.3 covered under House Site Patta in Rc.No.130/2023, dated 19.06.2023 situated at Bowluvada, Anakapalle Mandal & District, without following due process of law. No order as to costs.

¶35

As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.

¶36

___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶37

PVD

Paila Ramana v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Paila Ramana v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases