Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
P Rama Chandra Reddy vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 12 March, 2025
APHC010125972025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3594]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
WRIT PETITION No.6348 OF 2025
Between:
P. Rama Chandra Reddy
...PETITIONER
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others
...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. K NARSI REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS
The Court made the following ORDER:
The present Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner under Article
226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:
“…to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one
in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of
the 4th respondent in issuing the notice vide Rc.No.7/2025,
2dated 07.03.2025, as illegal, arbitrary, unlawful and without
jurisdiction and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of
Constitution of India and consequently, set aside and same
and pass…”
2. Heard Sri C.V. Mohan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, appearing
on behalf of the petitioner, and Sri Dammalapati Srinivas, learned
Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the respondents.
3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he is the owner and
possessor of land measuring Ac.0.40 cents in Sy.No.261/1 and Ac.1.38
cents in Sy.No.314/2, purchased through a registered sale deed, dated
03.04.1991 (Doc.No.1297/1991), from Sri Degala Venkatesam.
Additionally, the petitioner purchased land measuring Ac.0.40 cents in
Sy.No.261/1 and Ac.1.38 cents in Sy.No.314/2 through another
registered sale deed, dated 04.04.1991 (Doc. No. 1337/1991), located
in Maruthinagar Extension, M.R. Pally, Tirupati.
4. The petitioner constructed a house on the aforementioned land in
2004 after obtaining the necessary permissions from the competent
authority. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the petitioner’s
vendors were the lessees of Sri Bugga Muth and that the 1st
respondent, via G.O.Ms.No.988, dated 30.11.1990, permitted sale of
the aforementioned lands to the petitioner, who subsequently
3
partitioned the lands among themselves. The petitioner then purchased
the land from them through the aforesaid registered sale deeds.
5. The present writ petition is filed questioning the impugned notice,
dated 07.03.2025, issued to the petitioner, alleging that the petitioner
has encroached the land admeasuring Ac.1.50 cents in Sy.No.261/1
and land admeasuring Ac.2.38 cents in Sy.No.261/2 belongs to Sri
Bugga Muth. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the petitioner
purchased the land in 1991 and has been in peaceful possession and
enjoyment of it without any dispute. The petitioner has documents to
prove his ownership and submits that his family members have land to
various extents with different survey numbers. He contends that the
impugned notice was issued due to a change in the political scenario.
6. Learned Senior Counsel submits that, by virtue of the impugned
notice issued to the petitioner, the respondents may enter the
petitioner’s land and evict him using police force. He sought to suspend
the impugned notice, dated 07.03.2025 (Rc.No.7/2025).
7. On the other hand, the learned Advocate General, appearing for
the respondents, states that, prima facie, the writ petition is not
maintainable as it is still at the notice stage and the petitioner can
submit his explanation within seven (7) days. Furthermore, it is
4
submitted that the petitioner is in illegal possession without any valid
right. The learned Advocate General emphasizes that the petitioner can
submit his explanation in response to the impugned notice.
8. On perusing the records, it is evident that the petitioner has been
in possession of the land for more than 34 years. The petitioner
purchased land admeasuring Ac.0.40 cents in Sy.No.261/1 on
03.04.1991, and another land admeasuring Ac.0.40 cents in Sy.No.
261/1 on 04.04.1991. In total, the petitioner owns Ac.0.80 cents in Sy.
No.261/1.
9. In light of the submissions made by learned Senior Counsel
representing the petitioner and learned Advocate General representing
the respondents, this Court finds it appropriate to direct the petitioner to
submit his explanation along with supporting documents within ten (10)
days from today. Thereafter, the respondents shall consider the
explanation and issue appropriate orders within three (3) weeks, after
providing an opportunity for the petitioner to be heard. Upon such
hearing, the respondents shall issue a detailed order and communicate
it to the petitioner as soon as possible. Additionally, the respondents are
directed not to take any further action against the petitioner for a period
of ten (10) days from the date of issuing such detailed order.
5
10. With the above directions, the present Writ Petition is disposed of.
There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand
closed.
__________________________
JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM
12th March, 2025.
cbn
6
49
THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM
W.P.No.6348 of 2025
12th March, 2025
cbn