APHC010154542025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] MONDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 8171/2025 Between: Jinkala Mohan ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. S PARINEETA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: 2 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 8171/2025 ORDER: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India seeking the following reliefs:- “to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action on the part of respondent Nos.2 to 5 in interfering with the petitioner’s rights over the land in an extant of Ac.0.12 Cents and 0.11 Cents in Sy.No.296/2E of Raganipalle Village fields, Punganur Mandal, Chittoor District by entering into private disputes and issuing notice date 19.03.2025 at the instance of the respondent No.6 while an ad-injunction order, dated 29.01.2024 made in l.A.No.60 of 2024 in O.S.No.33 of 2024 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Punganur, against the respondent No.6 is in force as arbitrary, illegal, colorable exercise of power and also well established legal principals apart from being violative of the fundamental and constitutional rights guaranteed the petitioner under Article 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents No.2 to 5 not to interfere with rights over the land in extent of an Ac.0.12 cents and Ac.0.11 Cents in Sy.No.296/2E of Raganipalle Village fields, Punganur Mandal, Chittoor District and pass such other order.” 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.0.12 cents and Ac.0.11 cents in Sy.No.296/2E of Raganipalle Village fields, Punganur Mandal, 3 Chittoor District. In view of the interference and hindrance of the 6th respondent, the petitioner filed O.S.No.33 of 2024 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Punganur and also filed an Interlocutory application seeking for temporary injunction, wherein the Court below after having detailed enquiry and on perusal of the documents filed by the petitioner was pleased to grant temporary injunction directing respondent No.6 herein not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the subject property till 21.02.2024. While things stood thus, at the instance of the 6th respondent, respondent Nos.3 to 5 issued notice for enquiry regarding the subject property of the petitioner, which is against the terms of the temporary injunction granted by the Court below. Hence, the Writ Petition. 4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents furnished written instructions, wherein it is stated as under: “Conversely, respondent No.6 has repeatedly submitted petitions through the Revenue Sadassu, the Public Grievance Redressal System, and directly to this office, claiming ownership over Ac.1.31 ½ cents of land in survey No.296/2, revised from an initial claim of Ac.1.63 ½ cents. His claim comprises Ac.0.58 cents acquired through inheritance and Ac.0.73 ½ cents through sale deeds executed in 1984 and 1985, vide:  DC.No.2058/1984, dated 18.06.1984 4  DC.No.4517/1984, dated 22.12.1984  DC.No.2621/1985, dated 23.07.1985  DC.No.2683/1985, dated 26.07.1985 10. An official endorsement has been issued to respondent No.6, stating that the subject matter is sub judice before the Hon’ble Junior Civil Judge Court, Punganur, vide O.S.No.33/2024. Any further action regarding the issuance of Pattadar Passbook shall be taken strictly in accordance with the orders of the Hon’ble Court. 11. Notwithstanding the above, respondent No.6 has once again approached this office, seeking an enquiry into the transactions of the legal heirs of K.Venkatarami Reddy-namely, K.Gangireddy, K.Venkataramana Raju, and K.Krishnama Raju-who sold the land to the present writ petitioner. Consequently, notices were issued from this office, vide L.Dis.No.57/2025, dated 19.03.2025, summoning them for an enquiry before respondent No.3 on 21.03.2025 at 3:00 PM. ” 5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents submits that the claim of the 6th respondent is against the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.1.31 cents out of Ac.5.26 cents in survey No.296/2. Moreover, the 6th respondent is claiming his title through registered sale deeds said to have been acquired by him in the year 1984 and 1985. Further the claim of the 6th respondent is not against the petitioner, it is against one 5 K.Venkatarami Reddy and three others who holds the remaining extent of land in survey No.296/2. 6. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents and on perusal of the material placed on record, it is observed that the land in survey No.296/2 is Ac.5.26 cents out of that the petitioner is claiming rights over the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.0.23 cents, whereas the claim of the 6th respondent is an extent of Ac.1.31 cents out of Ac.5.26 cents and he is claiming his rights pursuant to the acquisition through registered sale deeds. In view of the complaint and statutory compliance as contemplated under Section 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971, the 3rd respondent is under statutory obligation to enquire into the matter and issue appropriate proceedings as requested by the 6th respondent. It is further observed that in view of the temporary injunction granted by the competent Civil Court in favour of the petitioner, the 3rd respondent was clearly precluded to conduct any enquiry in respect of the extent held by the petitioner herein, which is suit schedule property. 7. In view of the above, the present Writ Petition is disposed of directing the 3rd respondent not to make any enquiry in respect of an extent of the land held by the petitioner against which the 6 competent Civil Court already granted temporary injunction. However, the 3rd respondent is at liberty to conduct an enquiry other than the suit schedule property as mentioned above in respect of the other extents of land in survey No.296/2. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel miscellaneous application, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 07.04.2025 TTPPSS 7 141 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO:8171 of 2025 07.04.2025 TTPPSS 8