Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Arikatla Brahmaiah vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 24 October, 2025

Author: B Krishna Mohan

Bench: B Krishna Mohan

APHC010377132020
                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
                                 AT AMARAVATI             [3233]
                          (Special Original Jurisdiction)

    WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER
           TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

                               PRESENT

       THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN

                     WRIT PETITION NO: 25187/2020

Between:
   1. ARIKATLA BRAHMAIAH, S/O.TIRUPALU, AGED 60 YEARS,
      RESIDENT OF H.NO. 6-96, BHUTHAMVARI PALLI, CHAKIRALA
      VILLAGE, KANIGIRIMANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA
      PRADESH.
   2. SURASANI     VEMKATA   RAMIREDDY,  S/O.  NADIPI
      VENKATAIAH, R/O. H.NO. 6-90, BHUTHAMVARI PALLI,
      CHAKIRALA VILLAGE, KANIGIRI MANDAL, PRAKASAM
      DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.
   3. BAPATLA KONDAIAH, S/O. CHINA ROSAIAH, AGED 68
      YEARS, R/O. H.NO. 6-560, BHUTHAMVARI PALLI, CHAKIRALA
      VILLAGE, KANIGIRI MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA
      PRADESH.
                                                    ...PETITIONER(S)
                                 AND
   1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL
      SECRETARY,    DEPARTMENT     OF    (ASSIGNMENT),
      SECRETARIAT,   VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI,    GUNTUR
      DISTRICT.
   2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PRAKASAM DISTRICT,ONGOLE.
   3. THE REVENUE      DIVISIONAL OFFICER,  KANDUKURU
      REVENUE DIVISION AT KANDUKURU, PRAKASAM DISTRICT
   4. THE TAHSILDAR, KANIGIRI MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.
                                              ...RESPONDENT(S):
2

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 an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents particularly the 4th respondent in proposing to allot house site pattas under the scheme NAVARATNALU-PEDALANDARIKI ILLU in the Grazing land (Mandabayalu)situated in an extent of Ac.43.92 cents covered by Sy.No.328 of Chakirala Revenue Village, Kanigiri Mandal, Prakasam District, as illegal, arbitrary, ultra virus, unjust against the procedure laid down in the Board standing orders and against the principles of natural justice and to consequently, direct the respondents not to allot the said land for house site pattas to third parties in the interest of justice and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2020 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 issue an interim direction against the respondents not to allot house site pattas under the scheme "NAVARATNALU- PEDALANDARIKI ILLU" in the Grazing land (MANDABAYALU) situated in an extent of Ac.43.92 cents covered by Sy.No.328of Chakirala Revenue Village, Kanigiri Mandal, Prakasam District, during the pendency of this writ petition, in the interest of justice and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2021 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 interim orders dt:30-12-2020 passed inWP.No.25187/2020 and dismiss the writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. K JYOTHI PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL (AP) 3 The Court made the following Order:
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents.

2. This writ petition was filed questioning the action of the respondents particularly the 4th respondent in proposing to allot house site pattas under the scheme „Navaratnalu Pedalandariki Illu‟ in the gazing land (Mandabayalu) situated in an extent of Ac.43.92 cents covered by Sy.No.328 of Chakirala Revenue Village, Kanigiri Mandal, Prakasam District.

3. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader relying upon the written instructions of the 4th respondent dated 23.09.2025 submits that the subject land was initiated for allotment of land into the house sites by following the due procedure. The subject land is a vacant land and no house site pattas were granted to anybody. There is an interim order of this court dated 31.12.2020.

4. In view of the above said facts and circumstances, the respondent Nos.2 to 4 are directed to deal with the subject land in an extent of Ac.43.92 cents in Sy.No.328 of Chakirala Revenue Village, Kanigiri Mandal, Prakasam District strictly in accordance with law, if so warranted for any public purpose and if not already used by now for the above said welfare scheme for the poor.

4

5. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. Interim order if any, deemed to have been vacated. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

_________________________ JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN 24.09.2025 NNN