Vambarelli Lakshrni, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Andhra Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Vambarelli Lakshrni, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Andhra Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

[3458]

APHC010110652020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

MOND A Y, THE SIXTH DAY OF APRIL TWO T HOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA

WRIT PETITION NO: 6818 OF 2020

Between:

VAMBARELLI LAK S HMI,, W/O. RAMULU, FEMALE, A GED 60 YEARS, R/O. D.N O .1-33/2, UPPAKAPADU VILLAGE,U N GUTURU MANADAL,WEST G O DAVRI DISTRICT

MAKA ANANTHA L AKSHM,, W/O. VENKATESWARARA O , HINDU, FEMALE., AGED 4 0 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.3.86/1, UPP A KAPADU VILLAGE, UNGUTU R U MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

MUPPIDI VENKATESH,, S/O. MUTYALU, AGED ABOUT 5 4 YEARS, R/O. UPPAKAPA D U VILLAGE, UNGUTOU MANDA L , WEST GODAVARI DISTRI C T.

KANKIPATI RAJU, S /O. NARASAYYA, AGED ABOUT. 39 YEARS, R/O. 4-119, UPPAK A PADU VILLAGE, UNGUTURU MAND A L, WEST GODAVARI DISTRI C T.

KANKIPATI RAVI T E JA,, S/ONAGESWARARAO, AGED A BOUT 32 YEARS, R/O. 4-87, UPPAKAPADU VILLAQE, UNGUTURU MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI D IST

MUTYALA VENKA T ESWARARAO,, S/O. CHINNA BHUCCHIYYA, AGED A.3OUT. 41 YEARS, R/O.4-41.7, UPPAKAPADU VILLAGE, UNGUTURU MAND A L, WEST CODAWRI DISTRICT.

KANDELI MURALI KRISHNA,, S/O. NAGESWARARA O , AGED ABOUT 26 YEA R S, R/O.4-110, UPPAKAPADU VILLAGE, UNGUTURU MAND A L, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

JAGANNADHARN A NJI,, S/O. VENKATESWARARAO, AG E D ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/O.1 - 142, UPPAKAPADU VILLAGE, U N GUTURU MANDAL, WEST G O DAVARI DISTRICT.

DARAPUREDDI A M MAJI,, W/O. SURYARAO, AGED A BOUT 66 YEARS, R/O.UPPA K APADU VILLAGE, UNGUTURU MANDAL, WEST

2

GODAVARI DISTRICT.

DASARI LAKSHMI SRINIVAS,, S/O. CHINNA VENKATA SWAMI, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/O.1-65, UPPAKAPADU VILLAGE, UNGUTURU MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

KANDELLI SATISH KUMAR, S/O. NAGESWARARAO, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, RIO.14-20-21 YAGARLAPALLI VILLAGE, TADEPALLIGUDEM MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

SIRRA VEERAMMA, W/O. MAHAMKALI, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/O.4-102, UPPAKAPADU VILLAGE, UNGUTURU MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

MAKA RATTAYYA, , S/O. SUBBARAO, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, R/O.4-15, UPPARAPADU VILLAGE, TAGUTURU MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

DULAPALLI SURIBABU,, S/O.NAGESWARARAO, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O.4-131, UPPAKAPADU VILLAGE, UNGUTURU MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER(S)

AND

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VELAGAPUD, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ELURU.

THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ELURU REVENUE DIVISION, ELURU.

THE MANDAL TAHSILDAR, UNGUTURU MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

THE VILLAGE REVENUE OFFICER, UPPAKAPDU VILLAGE, UNGUTURU MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT

...RESPONDENT(S):

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1.PATURI SRINIVAS CHOWDARY

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.GP FOR REVENUE (AP)

3

The Court made the following order:

Heard Sri Paturi Srinivas Chowdary, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri M.Chandra Sekhar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondents.

The instant writ petition is filed challenging the notice dated 11.01.2020 issued by the 4^th and 5^th respondents.

It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the 4^th respondent issued a notice dated 11.01.2020 requiring the petitioners to show cause as to why they should not dispossess the petitioners from the subject property. It is stated by the petitioners that the said notice was served on them on 04.03.2020.

On 17.03.2020, this Court granted status quo to be maintained by both the parties. However, proceedings dated 24.03.2020 were issued by the 4^th respondent cancelling the pattas issued in favour of the petitioners.

In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that although an order was passed on 24.03.2020 directing the VRO to take possession of the land, the petitioners are still in possession of the land and have not been physically dispossessed.

Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that although an order of resumption was passed, it was not served on the petitioners. The said position is strengthened by the statement of the 4^th respondent in the counter-affidavit.

4

Having regard to the same, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that liberty may be granted to the petitioners to challenge the resumption order dated 24.03.2020.

Having regard to the fact that the resumption order dated 24.03.2020 was not served on the petitioners, this Court deems it appropriate to grant liberty to the petitioners to challenge the said proceedings dated 24.03.2020.

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

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

______________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA

Date: 06.04.2026 BSK

5

30

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA

WRIT PETITION NO: 6818 OF 2020

Date: 06.04.2026 BSK