RAJAGIRI MAHALAKSHMI Vs. STATE OF A.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the 3rd respondent in issuing threats of dispossession. It is submitted that the petitioner is in occupation of a thatched house bearing Door No.9/42/67, Anjaneyavagu, Vijayawada.

(2.) It is submitted that the land admeasuring 120 square yards is in occupation of the petitioner and it is also stated that the 3rd respondent has constructed a retaining wall on the western side, making the property land-locked, and that the petitioner has been using the house of the 7th respondent for ingress and egress. It is submitted that the petitioner requested regularization of her occupation on 1/12/2025 through the Public Grievances Redressal System (for short, PGRS).

(3.) The learned Standing counsel appearing for respondent Nos.3 and 4 submits that the petitioner is a trespasser and has been in unauthorized occupation of the property. It is also submitted that her representation through the PGRS system cannot be considered for regularization. That apart, it is submitted that no effort has been made by the respondent authorities to dispossess the petitioner.