Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Mannepalli Venkataiah, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 3 November, 2025
Author: Ninala Jayasurya
Bench: Ninala Jayasurya
APHC010237192019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3209]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF NOVEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
WRIT PETITION NO: 10617 OF 2019
Between:
1. MANNEPALLI VENKATAIAH,, S/O. VENKATAIAH, AGE 56
YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, R/O. IRLAPADU VILLAGE,
MARRIPADU MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY TO REVENUE (LAND ACQUISITION)
DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI,
GUNTUR DISTRICT.
2. SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION,
SOMASILA PROJECT, ATMAKUR, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.
3. SPECIAL COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION, TELUGU GANGA
PROJECT, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.
4. THE THASILDHAR, MARRIPADU MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE
DISTRICT.
5. MANNEPALLI VENKATAIAH, S/O VENKATAIAH @ RAJAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RIO RAJULAPADU, IRLAPADU
VILLAGE, MARRIPADU MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT(S):
2
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. SATHEESH KUMAR EERLA Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR REVENUE (AP)
2. G JAGADEESWAR 3 The Court made the following ORDER:
Heard Mr.Eerla Satish Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Also heard Mr.K.Arjun Chowdary, learned Assistant Government Pleader, appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Mr.G.Jagadeeshwar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 5th respondent. With the consent of learned counsel on both sides, the Writ Petition is disposed of.
2) The Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:
"...to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly on e in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not referring the dispute relating to entitlement of ex-gratia for acquisition of land of Ac.4.90 cents in survey number 503/2P of Rajulapadu Majara, Irlapadu Village, Marripadu Mandal, SPSR Nellore District as illegal, irregular, arbitrarily and violative of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and offends articles 14, 21 and 300A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to refer the dispute to the competent Civil Court for ex-gratia and pass such other orders or order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."
3) At the time of considering the matter a learned Judge of this Court, after considering the rival submissions, passed a detailed order on 02.08.2023. The relevant portion of which reads as follows:
"Petitioner and respondent No.5 are claiming title to the property by virtue of alleged assignment made in their favour. In view of the rival claims of the petitioner and respondent No.5, Mandal Surveyor conducted enquiry and submitted report to the Tahsildar, Marripadu. As per the report of Mandal Surveyor, respondent No.5 is owner of the property. However, the report submitted by Mandal Surveyor does not indicate verification of DKT pattas and title deeds in favour of the petitioner as well as respondent No.5. In view of the same, Mandal 4 Revenue Officer, Marripadu, SPSR Nellore District shall verify the genuineness of DKT pattas filed by petitioner as well as respondent No.5 and submit report to his Court by next date of hearing. Learned Assistant Government Pleader shall inform the Mandal Revenue Officer about this order. Petitioner and respondent No.5 shall appear before MRO for enquiry."
4) Pursuant to the above order it is not in dispute that the 4th respondent proposed to conduct an enquiry on 23.09.2023 after due intimation to the petitioner and the 5th respondent. However, the petitioner addressed a letter dated 21.09.2023 to the 4th respondent stating that he will not be in a position to attend the enquiry on 23.09.2023 as he is going to Tirumala and requested adjournment. In view of the same, the matter was adjourned and thereafter the Tahasildar issued proceedings dated 02.07.2024, which are placed before this Court pursuant to the observation of this Court vide docket proceedings dated 23.11.2024. Be that as it may.
5) The learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submitted that before issuing proceedings dated 02.07.2024 no notice was issued to the petitioner, much less the date of adjournment pursuant to the request made by the petitioner on 21.09.2023 seeking adjournment. He has also drawn the attention of this court to the affidavit dated 01.04.2025 filed by the writ petitioner denying the signature of the petitioner. He submits that as no proper / adequate opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to submit material / documents in support of the petitioner's case, before issuing the proceedings dated 02.07.2024 by the 4th respondent, he urges 5 for appropriate orders directing the 4th respondent to conduct the enquiry afresh.
6) Learned Assistant Government Pleader sought to impress upon the Court that the proceedings dated 02.07.2024 of the 4th respondent are in line with the orders dated 02.08.2023 and are in accordance with law. Though the learned counsel for the 5th respondent supported the submissions of the learned Assistant Government Pleader, a perusal of the material on record, which was submitted pursuant to the direction of this Court dated 21.03.2025, would clearly go to show that the said proceedings dated 02.07.2024 have been passed without conducting an enquiry on 25.09.2023. First of all, though a notice dated 23.09.2023 adjourning the matter to 25.09.2023 appears to have been issued, the date of service of the said notice on the petitioner is not available. That apart, as seen from the proceedings dated 02.07.2024, it is evident that the enquiry was conducted on 23.09.2023, but not on 25.09.2023. When this aspect was pointed out by this Court, the learned counsel for the 5th respondent agreed for disposal of the matter with a direction to conduct enquiry afresh, however, by giving due opportunity to the respondent No.5 also and to enable him to produce the relevant material to substantiate his case.
7) In view of the said submissions recorded supra, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.4 to conduct a fresh enquiry and verify the genuineness of the DKT pattas of the petitioner as 6 well as respondent No.5 without reference to the proceedings dated 02.07.2024, after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the respondent No.5.
8) Keeping in view the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, the 4th respondent-Tahasildar is directed to conduct the enquiry on 14 November, 2025. On that day both the petitioner and the 5th respondent shall duly attend before the 4th respondent along with relevant material and shall cooperate with the enquiry as directed by this Court. In the event of any exigency, the Tahasildar may fix some other date for enquiry, after due intimation to the parties referred to above and by obtaining acknowledgment from them. Depending upon the outcome of the enquiry directed to be conducted by the Court, the parties may workout further remedies available to them, in accordance with law. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits or otherwise of the rival claims. The 4th respondent shall issue appropriate orders / proceedings, strictly in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of four (04) weeks from the date fixed by this Court or any date fixed by him, in the event of exigency. No costs.
9) Consequently, the Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
NINALA JAYASURYA, J Date:03.11.2025 Ssv 7 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA WRIT PETITION NO: 10617 OF 2019 Date:03.11.2025 Ssv