APHC010533672023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT PETITION NOs: 27810 of 2023, 6289 of 2024 & 9988 of 2024 Bench Sr.Nos:-61, 64 & 65 [3584] Karibandi Surya Kumari and Others ...Petitioner(s) Vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...Respondent(s) ********** Advocate for Petitioner: HARINATH REDDY SOMA P.NAGENDRA REDDY Advocate for Respondent: GP FOR REVENUE CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE LISA GILL SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 21st July 2026 COMMON ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Challa Gunaranjan) These three writ petitions are preferred by very same petitioners, though seeking different reliefs, however, are concerned with same subject property. 2. In Writ Petition No.27810 of 2023, the petitioners have challenged the action of respondents 3 and 4 therein, i.e., Revenue Divisional Officer, Kovvuru Revenue Division, West Godavari District and Tahsildar, Gopalapuram Mandal, West Godavari District, in incorporating names of tenants in revenue records pertaining to the lands specifically mentioned in the writ petition to be illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of 2 HCJ & CGR, J Writ Petition Nos.27810 of 2023, 6289 of 2024 & 9988 of 2024 Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 and consequently sought direction to aforesaid respondents not to alter the entries in revenue records. 3. In Writ Petition No.6289 of 2024, petitioners challenged the action of 2nd respondent therein, i.e., Tahsildar, Gopalapuram Mandal, East Godavari District, in amending revenue entries in respect of the lands specifically mentioned in the writ petition by entering the names of unofficial respondents 3 to 34 as pattadars contrary to the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 and consequently to direct the 2nd respondent to delete the names so entered. 4. In Writ Petition No.9988 of 2024, the petitioners have questioned the action of respondents 4 to 6 therein, i.e., Joint Sub-Registers of Korukonda, Kovvur and Vegeswarapuram of East Godavari District, in receiving and processing the documents presented by unofficial respondents, i.e., respondents 9 to 24 and thereby registering the sale deeds as specifically mentioned therein to be arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the provisions of Registration Act and consequently to cancel the sale deeds so registered. 5. Heard Sri T.D.Phani Kumar, learned counsel, representing Sri Harinath Reddy Soma and Sri K.Sazid, learned counsel 3 HCJ & CGR, J Writ Petition Nos.27810 of 2023, 6289 of 2024 & 9988 of 2024 representing Sri P.Nagendra Reddy, learned counsels for petitioners on record and learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for official respondents. 6. During the hearing, it has been pointed out that petitioners in these writ petitions are none other than appellants in Writ Appeal No.241 of 2024. In aforesaid writ appeal, writ petitioners/appellants have called in question the common judgment dated 02.06.2017 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.954 of 2005 and batch. 7. The above said appeal was heard along with the present proceedings and, by way of separate judgment, the same has been dismissed following the common judgment dated 29.08.2018 in Writ Appeal Nos.1070, 1072 and 1076 of 2017, which confirmed the learned Single Judge’s order. 8. Since petitioners claim right to subject property as landowners and disputing the rights of tenants, which aspect has already been set at not by Hon’ble Apex Court, the prayers made in these writ petitions are misconceived. 9. Further, leaned counsel appearing for contesting respondents, who are tenants, brought to our notice the orders passed in Writ Petition No.5458 of 2024, which was yet again instituted by very same petitioners, wherein, learned Single 4 HCJ & CGR, J Writ Petition Nos.27810 of 2023, 6289 of 2024 & 9988 of 2024 Judge, having noticed that already they had preferred an appeal before Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal – cum – II Additional District Judge at Eluru, by granting liberty to raise all issues before the appellate authority, refrained to entertain the writ petition and accordingly dismissed the said case as the same amounted to maintaining two parallel remedies simultaneously. Learned counsel for petitioners does not deny the same. 10. The prayers sought for in these writ petitions cannot be considered independent of the proceedings under challenge before Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal and also considering the fact that in Writ Petition No.5458 of 2024 instituted by very same petitioners, learned Single Judge had already granted liberty to them to raise all the grounds whatsoever before the appellate authority, petitioners therefore are at liberty to raise even these issues as well before the appellate authority. 11. With aforesaid observations, these writ petitions stand disposed of. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending in these cases, if any, shall stand closed. LISA GILL, CJ CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J SS