APHC010434052018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 20210/2018 Between: 1. N.BHASKAR REDDY, S/ O LATE N.NANJI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/O ENUMULAPALLI VILLAGE, PUTTAPARTHY MANDAL, ANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT AT A P SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2. THE JOINT COLLECTOR, THE JOINT COLLECTOR, ANANTHAPURAM 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KADIRI, ANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT 4. THE TAHSILDAR, PUTTAPARTHY MANDAL, ANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT 5. M K RAMACHANDRA RAO, S/O LATE SREENIVASA RAO R/ O ENUMULAPALLI VILLAGE, PUTTAPARTHY MANDAL, ANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Writs, 2 VS,J W.P.No.20210 of 2018 Order or Direction, declaring the Order dated 27.3.2018 in D.Dis.No. 3512/2016/D4 on the file of the 2nd Respondent and the Order dated 19.4.2016 in Rc.No. 1063/2016/K on the file of the third respondent, as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of A P Rights in Lands and Pattedar Passbooks Act, 1971 and Rules made thereunder Award costs and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2018 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 suspend the operation of the order dated 27.03.2018 in D.Dis No. 3512/2016/D4 on the file of the 2nd respondent and the order dated 19.4.2016 in Rc. No. 1063/2016/K on the file of third respondent, Pending disposal of W.P. No. of 2018, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. N RANGA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE (AP) 2. A VENKATESH The Court made the following: 3 VS,J W.P.No.20210 of 2018 ORDER: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “….to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Writs, Order or Direction, declaring the Order dated 27.3.2018 in D.Dis.No.3512/2016/D4 on the file of the 2nd Respondent and the Order dated 19.4.2016 in Rc.No.1063/2016/K on the file of the third respondent, as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of A.P.Rights in Lands & Pattedar Passbooks Act, 1971 and Rules made thereunder….” 2. The petitioner herein claims to be the owner of half extent out of land admeasuring 37 cents in Sy.No.346 of Enumulapalli Village, Puttaparthy Mandal, Ananthapuram District. Originally, the above land was purchased by his father from one K.Subba Rao vide Document No.1686 of 1959 and ever since the date of purchase, the petitioner’s father has been in possession and enjoyment of the said land. After the demise of his father, the petitioner inherited the above said land from his father. Thereafter, the revenue authorities have also issued pattadhar passbooks and title deeds in favour of the petitioner basing on his possession and enjoyment. 3. While the matter stood thus, the 5th respondent herein made a representation dated 30.03.2016 to the 3rd respondent alleging that the petitioner’s father had purchased only a half share of water rights in the well situated in Sy.No.346, as the land was being cultivated with the well water, but not a half share of land in Sy.No.346, and that the alleged mutations were 4 VS,J W.P.No.20210 of 2018 wrongly carried out by the revenue authorities in favour of the petitioner, and requested to cancel the pattadar passbooks issued in the name of the petitioner. Basing on the said representation, the 3rd respondent issued notice to the petitioner and, after duly conducting an enquiry, vide order dated 19.04.2016 in Rc.No.1063/2016/K, cancelled the pattadar pass books issued in favour of the petitioner and also directed the 4th respondent to take suitable steps in this regard. Aggrieved by which, the petitioner has preferred a revision before the 2nd respondent. However, vide order dated 27.03.2018, the 2nd respondent confirmed the orders passed by the 3rd respondent. It is further submitted that, as the petitioner was in continuous possession and enjoyment of the subject property and the 5th respondent was continuously trying to interfere with his possession, the petitioner was constrained to file O.S.No.11 of 2017 on the file of the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Penukonda, seeking injunction. Challenging the impugned order dated 27.03.2018 passed by the 2nd respondent and the order dated 19.04.2016 passed by the 3rd respondent, the present writ petition has been filed. 4. Respondent No.2 has filed a counter affidavit supporting the impugned orders and has stated that the revision petition was admitted on 06.06.2016 under the provisions of Section 9 of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971, and the lower court records were called for. Finally, the revision was posted to 04.11.2017. After verifying the contents of the registered sale deed No.1686/1959, dated 28.11.1959, it was noticed that Sri N.Nanji Reddy, who is the father of the petitioner, had purchased only a half 5 VS,J W.P.No.20210 of 2018 share of water rights in the well situated in Sy.No.346. Having considered the same, the 2nd respondent, vide impugned proceedings dated 27.03.2018, cancelled the pattadar passbooks and title deeds issued in favour of the petitioner in respect of Sy.No.346 of Enumulapalli Village, Puttaparthy Mandal, and further directed the Tahsildar, Puttaparthy, to delete the relevant entries from the electronically maintained ROR records. As such, requested to dismiss the writ petition. 5. The 5th respondent has also filed a counter under similar lines. 6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5. 7. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that O.S.No.11 of 2017, filed by the petitioner on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Penukonda, is still pending adjudication. He, therefore, requested this Court to dispose of the writ petition by directing the respondent authorities to consider the claim of the petitioner, subject to the result of the said suit. 8. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue did not oppose the said request. 9. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, and in view of the fact that O.S.No.11 of 2017 is pending 6 VS,J W.P.No.20210 of 2018 adjudication on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Penukonda, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondent authorities to consider the claim of the petitioner in respect of the subject land, subject to the result of O.S.No.11 of 2017 and in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Dated 19.06.2026 KGR