1 APHC010189922021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3458] THURSDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 10776/2021 Between: 1. K YESWANTH KUMAR, S/O. LATE K.S.PRASAD REDDY, AGED 45 YEARS. RESIDENT OF CHUTTUGUNTA RAMAPURAM VILLAGE AND POST, R.C.PURAM MANDAL CHITTOOR DISTRICT). 2. K.SWARAJYA KUMARI, W/O. LATE K.S.PRASAD REDDY, AGED 70 YEARS. RESIDENT OF CHUTTUGUNTA RAMAPURAM VILLAGE AND POST, R.C.PURAM MANDAL CHITTOOR DISTRICT). ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AT AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CHITTOOR. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, CHITTOOR DIVISION, CHITTOOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, R.C.PURAM MANDAL, R.C.PURAM, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 5. K DEVAKI, W/O. LATE RAVI PRAKASH, AGED 40 YEARS. RESIDENT OF NADAVALUR VILLAGE AND POST, R.C.PURAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT). 6. N PREMA, W/O. DAMODARA PILLAI, AGED 40 YEARS. RESIDENT OF NADAVALUR VILLAGE AND POST, R.C.PURAM MANDAL, 2 CHITTOOR DISTRICT). 7. N NARAYANASWAMI PILLAI, S/O. LATE KUPPUSWAMI PILLAI, AGED 47 YEARS.RESIDENTS OF NADAVALUR VILLAG AND POST, R.C.PURAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT). 8. N NAGARAJU, S/O. LATE KUPPUSWAMY PILLAI, AGED 43 YEARS. RESIDENTS OF NADAVALUR VILLAGE AND POST, R.C.PURAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR 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 topleased to issue writ, order or direction more in the natu-e of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd Respondent in not pass,ng any orders in the Appeal filed by the Petitioners questioning the orders passed by the 4th Respondent vide proceedings in Roc.No.48/2019 dated 10-12-2019 over the lands in Sy.No.122/1 over and extent of Ac.6.09 cents and Sy.No.122/3 over an extent of Ac.1.03 cents of Chuttugunta Ramapuram Village and Post, R.C.Puram Mandal, Chittoor District as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and also .ontrary to Articles 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents not to interfere with the subject property in any manner including changing the physical features of the subject lands by granting permissions for construction of compoUnd wall and structures in the disputed lands in the above mentioned properties and 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 issue an interim direction directing the Respondents more particularly 4 to 8 not to change the physical features of the subject lands in Sy.No.122/1 overand extent of Ac.6.09 cents and Sy.No.122/3 over an extent of Ac.1.03 cents of Chuttugunta Ramapuram Village and Post, R.C.Puram Mandal, Chittoor District pending disposal of the Writ Petition, and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 May be pleased to grant leave of this Hon’ble court to file the counter affidavit in the above Writ Petition in the equity of justice and pass 3 Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. D KRISHNA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE (AP) 2. O UDAYA KUMAR APHC010306052021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3458] THURSDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 18204/2021 Between: 1. K. DEVAKI, , W/O LATE SRI N. RAVI PRASKASH, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, RESIDING AT NADAVALUR VILLAGE, R.C. PURAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 2. N. PREMA,, W/O N. DAMODAR PILLAI, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT NADAVALUR VILLAGE, R.C. PURAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 3. N. NARAYANASWAMI PILLAI,, S/O LATE KUPPUSWAMI PILLAI AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT NADAVALUR VILLAGE, R.C. PURAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 4. N. NAGARAJU,, S/O LATE KUPPUSWAMI PILLAI, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT NADAVALUR VILLAGE, R.C. PURAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 4 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI. GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, CHITTOOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, CHITTOOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, R. C. PURAM MANDAL, R.C. PURAM, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 5. K YESWANTH KUMAR, S/O LATE K. S. PRASAD REDDY, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT CHUTTUGUNTA RAMAPURAM VILLAGE AND POST, R. C. PURAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 6. K SWARAJYA KUMARI, W/O LATE K. S. PRASAD REDDY, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, RESIDING AT CHUTTUGUNTA RAMAPURAM VILLAGE AND POST, R. C. PURAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR 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 topleased to issue, writ or order specially one in the nature of 'Writ of Prohibition' declaring the act of 3rd respondent in entertaining appeal vide No Roc.G/152/2021 on its file, filed by the Respondents No. 5 and 6 against the proceedings of Tahsildar, R.C.Puram Mandal, Chittoor District in respect of Lands situated in Sy. No. 122/1 and 122/3 of an extent of Ac. 6-09 cents and Ac. 1-03 cents respectively totaling an extent of Ac. 7-12 cents in C. Ramapuram Village, R.C.Puram Mandal, Chittoor District is part of the vast extent of estate village of Chuttugunta Ramapuram (C.Ramapuram) village, R.C.Puram Mandal (Erstwhile Chandragiri Taluk), Chittoor District as illegal, coram non judis, usurping the powers Civil Court and consequently direct the Respondent No. 3 to reject the appeal as not maintainable on its forum and to pass such 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 be pleased to grant stay all further proceedings in appeal vide No 5 Roc.G/152/2021 on the file of Respondent No. 3 pending disposal of the main writ petition and to pass such IA NO: 1 OF 2022 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 prayed to vacate the stay order dated 04-09-2021in IA.No.1 of 2021 in WP.No.18204 of 2021and also prayed to dismiss IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 pleased to grant leave to us file counter affidavit on behalf of respondents 5 and 6 in W.P. No. 18204/2021 orelse we will suffer grave injustice and pass such other orders as are deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. O UDAYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. D KRISHNA MURTHY 2. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: 6 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NOS:10776 & 18204 OF 2021 COMMON ORDER: Since the issues involved in both the cases are one and the same, it is deemed appropriate to pass ‘Common Order’ in the cases. 2. The W.P.No.18204 of 2021 is filed seeking a Writ of Prohibition to declare the proceedings of the 3rd respondent in entertaining Appeal No.Roc.G/152/2021, filed by respondent Nos.5 and 6 (writ petitioners in W.P.No.10776 of 2021) as not maintainable. 3. The W.P.No.10776 of 2021 is filed challenging the action of the Revenue Divisional Officer in not disposing of the appeal filed against the proceedings of the Mandal Revenue Officer in refusing to mutate the names of the writ petitioners (unofficial respondents 5 & 6 in W.P. No.18204 of 2021) in the revenue records. 4. For adjudication of issues involved in both the Writ Petitions, the parties hereinafter are referred to as arrayed in W.P.No.18204 of 2021. 5. It is contended by the petitioners that originally, the subject property belong to one Talupuri Seshachalaiah, and Talupuri Kumaraswamy. They had given the subject land on Saswatha Muchilika i.e. Permanent Lease in 1918 vide registered lease deed dated 07.11.1918 in favour of one Karanam Narayanaswamy Pillai. The said K. Narayaswamy Pillai was in 7 possession and enjoyment of the said land during his lifetime. After his demise, his two sons Karanam Subbaraya Pillai and Karanam Kuppuswamy Pillai, were given rough patta in the year 1957 under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948. 6. After the grant of ‘Rough Patta’ in favour of the said Karanam Subbaraya Pillai and Karanam Kuppuswamy Pillai, their names were recorded in Fair Land Adangal and the relevant revenue records. A joint ryotwari passbook was also issued in favour of Karanam Subbaraya Pillai and Karanam Kuppuswamy Pillai, in 1986. After their demise, the names of their respective family members were mutated in the revenue records. 7. It is further contended that partition was affected between the branches of the two families of Karanam Subbaraya Pillai and Karanam Kuppuswamy Pillai, represented by the 1st petitioner Smt. K. Devaki and N. Damodhara Pillai respectively, through a registered partition deed dated 27.10.2018 vide Document bearing No.4837/18. After the said partition, the respective share holders were given their respective shares in terms of the said partition deed. Thereafter, after the demise of Sri N. Damodhara Pillai, husband of the 2nd petitioner, a partition took place amongst his family members vide registered partition deed dated 07.07.2020 bearing Document No.2129/2020. 8 8. It is contended that the petitioners and their ancestors are in occupation and enjoyment of the subject property since 1918, by virtue of a rough patta granted in favour of ancestors of the petitioners. 9. It is further contended that the unofficial respondents 5 & 6 based on a fraudulent sale deed dated 05.07.1965, are claiming right over the property, and has approached the Tahsildar to cancel the entries made in the names of petitioners and their predecessors. It is contended that the Tahsildar, the 4th respondent herein rightly rejected the claim of the unofficial respondents 5 & 6. Against which unofficial respondents 5 & 6 filed an appeal before the 3rd respondent. It is contended that the 3rd respondent has no jurisdiction to entertain such an appeal. 10. It is further contended by the petitioners that even before any notice was issued by the RDO, to the petitioners herein, in the appeal filed by the unofficial respondents 5 & 6, the unofficial respondents 5 & 6 filed writ petition in W.P.No.10776 of 2021 challenging the alleged inaction on the part of the RDO in taking up the appeal and passing orders thereon. In the said writ petition, pending disposal of the said Writ Petition, interim directions were granted to maintain status quo in all respects. 11. The learned Senior Counsel Sri O. Manohar Reddy, appearing for Sri O.Udaya Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the 3rd respondent has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal as the petitioners’ ancestors were granted Rough Patta by the Settlement Officer under the 9 provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (for short ‘the Act, 1948’). Once patta was granted under the provisions of the said statute, the remedy for any aggrieved party would be by way of an appeal before the Commissioner, Land Revenue under the provisions of the said Act, 1948. It is contended that the entries in the revenue records in the subject case are consequential proceedings of granting rough patta in favor of the petitioners. When the said proceedings issued under ‘the Act, 1948’, have become final, without challenging the same or seeking set aside of the said proceedings, the revenue authorities have no jurisdiction either modify or alter the entries made in the revenue records in favour of the petitioners on the basis of proceedings issued under the provisions of ‘the Act, 1948’. Thus the Tahsildar has rightly rejected the application made by the unofficial respondents against which an appeal is not maintainable. In this regard, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners places reliance on the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.34878 of 2017. 12. It is contended by the learned Senior Counsel Sri O. Manohar Reddy, that the rough patta was granted in favour of the petitioners’ ancestors as long back in 1957. The learned counsel further contends that in terms of provisions of Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971(for short ‘the Act, 1971’), any person affected by any entry in the record of right may file an appeal within one year from the date of notification issued under Sec.3(2) of the Act, 1971. It is further contended that if the unofficial respondents 5 & 6 have purchased the property in the year 10 1965 an appropriate application should have been filed at relevant point of time when they have purchased the property. However they have approached the revenue authorities for the first time, now, which in itself shows that the document relied upon by the unofficial respondents Nos.5 & 6 is a sham and fraudulent document. Hence cannot be looked into. 13. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.34878 of 2017, contends that if the unofficial respondents had purchased the property in the year 1965, they ought to have taken necessary steps for mutation in the revenue records, they cannot now seek mutation in the year 2019 for the first time. 14. Learned Senior Counsel further contends that, entries made in the revenue records cannot be sought to be rectified after lapse of more than 50 years from issuance of rough patta. It is submitted that the unofficial respondents, failed to act within a reasonable time. 15. Having regard to the above, the learned Senior Counsel contends that the Mandal Revenue Officer has rightly passed the impugned order and seeks dismissal of the appeal. 16. It is further contended that the appeal filed by the unofficial respondents 5 & 6 against the said order of Tahsildar, under the provisions of Section 5-B of the RoR Act, is not maintainable. Therefore, the Revenue Divisional Officer cannot entertain the said appeal. Accordingly, a Writ of 11 Prohibition is sought restraining the Revenue Divisional Officer from entertaining the said appeal. 17. The learned counsel for the petitioner not only states that there is wrong provision of law but also claims the relief that has been sought in the prayer is not maintainable. 18. Per contra, the learned counsel Sri D. Krishna Murthy, appearing for the unofficial respondents 5 & 6 would contend that the rough patta granted in favour of the said Karanam Subbaraya Pillai and Karanam Kuppuswamy Pillai, would not create any right in favour of the petitioners’ herein, as the said rough patta would not grant any title in respect of the subject property. It is further contended that the petitioners’ grandfather had purchased subject property from the original owners of the land i.e. Talupuri Seshachaiah, and Talupuri Kumarmaswamy in the year 1965 vide registered sale deed document bearing No.2171/1965 dated 05.07.1965. After the demise of the petitioners’ grandfather, the father of the petitioner had succeeded to the same and after his lifetime, the petitioner being the successor of his father, succeeded to the subject property. 19. It is the case of the unofficial respondents that they purchased the subject property through a registered sale deed from T. Seshaiah and T. Kumaraswamaiah, who were the original owners of the property. 12 20. Having regard to the same, it is contended that the Revenue Divisional Officer may be directed to dispose of the appeal filed by the unofficial respondents within a time frame manner. 21. It is further contended that, after issuance of notice, the learned counsel for the unofficial respondents 5 & 6 appeared before the Revenue Divisional Officer, filed a counter affidavit, and the matter was taken up for consideration. However, the petitioners obtained an interim order restraining the Revenue Divisional Officer from proceeding with the appeal. 22. Sri D. Krishna Murthy, learned counsel for the unofficial respondents 5 & 6, places reliance on the judgments : i) The decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector and Others Vs. P. Mangamma and Others1, wherein it is observed as under: “7. It is to be noted that the respondents questioned correctness of the orders passed by the Collector by filing writ petitions. As noted above, learned Single Judge had directed the issues to be considered by the original authority. It is a settled proposition in law that even jurisdictional questions can be considered by an authority deciding the question whether proceeding was validly initiated or not.” ii) The decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Isha Beevi and Others Vs. Tax Recovery Officer, wherein it is observed as under: “5. We may point out that the reliefs claimed in the Writ Petitions were Writs of Certiorari, and Mandamus and Prohibition it is clear to us after perusal of those so, called "orders" sought to be quashed that they 1 (2003) 4 Supreme Court Cases 488 13 were only notices of commencement of recovery proceedings by attachment of certain properties. Final orders could only be passed after the appellants have had their opportunities to object under Rule 11 of the 2nd schedule of the 1961 Act because the notices purport to be only preliminary notices under Rule 48 of the 2nd Schedule to the 1961 Act These proceedings could only be quashed even at this stage, if they were entirely without jurisdiction Otherwise, a prayer for quashing proceedings would, obviously, be premature. No occasion for the issue of a writ of Mandamus can arise unless the applicants show non-compliance with some mandatory provision and seek to get that provision enforced because some obligation towards them is not carried out by the authority alleged to be flouting the law. The grievance of the appellants, however is that the tax recovery officer had no jurisdiction whatsoever to start tax recovery proceedings against them. They have, therefore, asked for writs of prohibition. The existence of an alternative remedy is not generally a bar to the issuance of such a writ or order. But in order to substantiate a right to obtain a writ of prohibition from a High Court or from this Court, an applicant has to demonstrate total absence of jurisdiction to proceed on the part of the officer or authority complained against. It is not enough if a wrong section of provision of law is cited in a notice or order if the power to proceed is actually there under another provision.” iii) The decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of S. Govinda Menon Vs. Union of India and another. 23. Considered the submissions. 24. The Settlement Officer granted a ryotwari patta in the year 1957 in favour of Karanam Subbaraya Pillai and Karanam Kuppuswamy Pillai, and their names were mutated in the revenue records. While the case of the unofficial respondents is that they purchased the property in the year 1965 by way of a registered agreement of sale vide Document No.2171 of 1965. 14 25. Having regard to the provisions of the RoR Act and the contentions advanced, this Court is of the view that appeal filed by the unofficial respondents 5 & 6 before the RDO under the provisions of Sec 5 (B) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 against the order of the Tahsildar refusing to mutate the names of the unofficial respondents 5 & 6, is not maintainable. As the said provisions deal with an appeal filed against the order of the Tahsildar passed under Section 5-A(4) of the RoR Act, whereas in the instant case, the order of the Tahsildar is referable to Section 5 of the RoR Act. Accordingly, it is observed that the instant appeal pending on the file of the RDO against the order of the Tahsildar is not maintainable. Accordingly, the 3rd respondent is directed not to proceed further with the instant appeal pending on its file in ROC.No.G/152/2021 and reject the same. However, liberty is granted to the unofficial respondents 5 & 6 to file the appeal before the appropriate Forum/authority . If any such an appeal is filed within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of the order, such Forum/authority is directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after giving due opportunity to the petitioner. 26. In view of the above observations, no further orders are required to be passed in W.P.No.10776 of 2021. 27. With the above observations, the Writ Petitions are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 15 As a sequel, all pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA Date:07.05.2026 BSK/MVK 16 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION Nos.10776 & 18204 of 2021 Date:07.05.2026 BSK/MVK