WP/6822/2020 of Vanka Ramachandara Venkata Krishna Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, on 17 February 2026

1. VANKA RAMACHANDARA VENKATA KRISHNA RAO,, S/O. ATCHUTA RAMAYYA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 1-101, VADAPALLI VILLAGE, KOVVUR MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

2. MADDIPATI UDAYA BHASKARA RAO, S/O. CHINNA VEERAJU, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 3-68, CHANDRAVARAM, H/O. MALLAVARAM VILLAGE, CHAGALLU MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

3. BIKKINA GANDHI, S/O. CHANDRA RAO, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 4-75, VADAPALLI VILLAGE, KOVVURU MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

4. YALAMATI VENKATA RAMANA,, S/O. SATYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 3-108, VADAPALLI VILLAGE, KOVVUR MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

5. SUNKAVALLI SATYANARAYANA, , S/O. KRISHNAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 1-182, VADAPALLI VILLAGE, KOVVUR MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

6. VANKA SATYANARAYANA, , S/O. ATCHUTARAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 3-31, VADAPALLI VILLAGE, KOVVUR

7. VANKA VENKATESWARAR RAO,, S/O. ATCHUTARAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 3-23, VADAPALLI VILLAGE, KOVVUR MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER(S) AND

1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,

REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDU VILLAGE, TULLUR MANDAL. GUNTUR DISTRICT.

2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT AT ELURU.

3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOVVURU REVENUE DIVISION, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

4. THE TAHSIIDAR, KOVVURU MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

5. THE MANDAL SURVEYOR, KOVVUR MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

6. THE VILLAGE REVENUE OFFICER, VADAPALLI VILLAGE, KOVVUR

...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. SRINIVASA RAO BODDULURI Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR REVENUE (AP) The Court made the following order:

Heard Smt. G.Mounika, learned counsel, representing Sri Srinivasa Rao Bodduluri, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents.

2. The grievance of the petitioner in the instant writ petition is against the respondents Nos.2 to 4 in converting and trying to assign house site pattas in respect of the land of an extent of Ac.2.80 cents and Ac.3.89 cents in Sy.No.403 & 404 of Vadapalli Village, Kovvur Mandal, West Godavari District, without following due process of law.

3. It is contended that the petitioners are the absolute owners of the properties detailed hereunder: S.No. Name Extents Survey Number Village

1. 1st petitioner Ac.1.00 cents Sy.No.396-2E2 Vadapalli Village

2. 2nd petitioner Ac.1.99 cents Ac.1.70 cents Sy.No.396-2C Sy.No.393-1 Vadapalli Village

3. 3rd petitioner Ac.0.48 cents Sy.No.396-4A Vadapalli Village

4. 4th petitioner Ac.2.20 cents Sy.No.396-13 Vadapalli Village

5. 5th petitioner Ac.4.05 cents Ac.3.00 cents Sy.No.395 Sy.No.396 Vadapalli Village

6. 6th petitioner Ac.1.00 cents Sy.No.396-2E1 Vadapalli Village

7. 7th petitioner Ac.1.00 cents Sy.No.396-2C3 Vadapalli Village

4. However, the respondent Nos.4 to 6 proposed to issue house site pattas for the land located in Sy.Nos.403 and 404 of Vadapalli Village on 29.02.2020, in favour of the landless poor. The petitioners lands are adjoining and abutting the land earmarked for assignment, which the petitioners have been using the same as a cart tract. It is contended that if any assignment is granted over the said lands, the petitioners have no other alternative passage to reach their agricultural fields. Even in the revenue records, the said land has been classified as <Bandi Dari.= Learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance on G.O.Ms.No.367, dated 19.08.2019.

5. Today, when the matter is taken up for consideration, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue has placed before this Court a copy of the written instructions received from the 4th respondent dated 11.02.2026. A perusal of the same would reflect that the 2nd respondent had issued proceedings dated 17.02.2020 for change of classification for issuance of house site pattas to the beneficiaries of Vadapalli Village. However, no pattas have been issued so far in respect of the said lands.

6. It is further stated that, in the said instructions, as per the provisions of Section 58(2) of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, the 2nd respondent is the competent authority to issue the Draft Executive Notification for exclusion of the lands and no notification was ever issued by the 2nd respondent.

7. Be that as it may, it is relevant to observe that it is the Government which has to issue the notification in the Official Gazette to the properties of the Gram Panchayat, if at all the said land is required by them.

8. Having regard to the above, this Court is of the view that the grievance of the petitioners is resolved and no further orders are required to be passed, since the respondents have not issued any pattas in respect of the subject land in favour of third parties. However, it is to be observed that if the respondents propose to acquire the subject land for a public purpose, they shall follow due process under law.

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

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA Date: 18.02.2026 BSK

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA

WRIT PETITION NO: 6822 OF 2020

Date: 18.02.2026 BSK