■ I & APHC010090712021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI A SS0 CO ct. X, p TUESDAY,THE TWELFTH DAY OF AUGUST ^ TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE .. ^ PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, THE CHIEF JUSTICE ★ Vi# AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT APPEAL NOS: 185 AND 459 OF 2021 WRIT APPEAL NO: 185 OF 2021 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 19.01.2021 passed in W.P.No 43066 of 2018 Court. on the file of the High Between; 1. The Mandal Parishad Development Officer. District. 2. Tullur Gram Panchayat, Rep. by its Panchayat Secretary. Tullur, Guntur District. Tullur Mandal, Guntur ...Petitioners AND 1. Ravela Ram Mohan Rao @ Ramalingaiah, S/o Somaiah^ged about 75 years. R/o Tullur village and Mandal, Guntur District. ^ 2. Ravela Srinivas, S/o Ram Mohan Rao village and Mandal, Guntur district. Aged 46 years, R/o Tulluru Respondents/Petitioners 3. The State of A.P., Rep. by its PrI. Secretary, Panchayat Raj Department. A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi. 4. The District Panchayat Officer, Guntur District, GunturT^ 5. The Divisional Panchayat Officer, Guntur, Guntur Disfnct. 6. R Gopala Krishna, S/o not known, Aged not known, Working as Panchayat Secretary, Tullur Gram Panchayat, Guntur District. ...Respondents/Respondents lA 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 suspend the Judgment dated 19.01.2021 passed by the learned single Judge Sri.Justice D.V.S.S. Somayajulu in WP No. 43066 of 2018 pending disposal of the main Writ Appeal. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI M SUOIHIR SC For Z.P.P, M.P.P AND Gram Panchayat Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 3 to 5: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2: SRI VENKATESWARA RAO GUDAPATI APHC010157172021 WRIT APPEAL NO: 459 OF 2021 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the orders dated 19-01-2021 in W.P. No. 43066 of 2018 on the file of the High Court. Between: 1. Ravela Ram Mohan Rao @ Ramalingaiah, S/o. Somaiah, Hindu, Aged about 75 years, R/o. Tulluru Village and Mandal Guntur District. 2. Ravela Srinivas,, S/o. Ram Mohan Rao, Hindu, Aged 46 years, R/o. Tulluru Village and Mandal Guntur District. -// '// / ...Petitioners AND r 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by it's PrI. Secretary, Panchayat Raj Department A. P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi. The District Panchayat Officer, Guntur, District Guntur. The Divisional Panchayat Officer, Guntur, Guntur District. The Mandel Parishad Development Officer, Tullur Mandal, Guntur District. Tullur Grampanchayat, Rep. by it's Panchayat Secretary, Tullur, Guntur District. R Gopala Krishna, S/o. not known. Age not known. Working Panchayat Secretary, Tullur Gram Panchayat, Guntur District. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. as ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI VENKATESWARA RAO GUDAPATI Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV Counsel for the Respondent No. 5: SRI M SUDHIR SC FOR ZPP, MPP AND GP The Court made the following Common Order: i-'-- APHC010090712021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) aSiw; [3483] WRIT APPEAL NO: 185/2021 along with WRIT APPEAL No.459/2021 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent to present this Memorandum of Writ Appeal aggrieved by the Judgment dated 19.01.2021 passed in W.P.No 43066 of 2018. Between; 1.THE MANDAL PARISHAD DEVELOPMENT OFFICER.. TULLUR MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. TULLUR GRAM PANCHAYAT, REP. BY ITS PANCHAYAT SECRETARY. TULLUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT(S) AND 1.RAVELA RAM MOHAN RAORAMALINGAIAH, S/0 SOMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS. R/0 TULLUR VILLAGE AND MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2.RAVELA SRINIVAS, S/0 RAM MOHAN RAO, AGED 46 YEARS, R/0 TULLURU VILLAGE AND MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3 THE STATE OF A P, REP. BY ITS PRL. SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT VELAGAPUDI, RAJ DEPARTMENT. A.P. SECRETARIAT, AMARAVATHI. GUNTUR DISTRICT. 4.THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICER, GUNTUR. 5.THE DIVISIONAL PANCHAYAT OFFICER, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 'W.A‘Xos.185 459 of2021 2 AGED NOT KNOWN, TULLUR GRAM 6.R GOPALA KRISHNA, S/0 NOT KNOWN, WORKING AS PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S); lA 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 suspend the Judgment dated 19.01.2021 passed by the learned single Judge Sri Justice D.V.S.S. Somayajulu in WP No. 43066 of 2018 pending disposal of the main Writ Appeal. lA NO: 2 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 implead the Petitioner as Respondent No. 7 in W.A No.185/2021 in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Appellant(S); 1.Mattegunta.Sudhir,Standing Counsel For Z.P.Ps,M.P.Ps.Gram Panchayats Counsel for the Respondent(S); 1 .GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 2.VENKATESWARA RAO GUDAPATI 3.PHANITEJACHERUVU The Court made the following: CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI DATE : 12.08.2025 H.^_A.!NbsJ8J dl 459 of2021 3 COMMON JUDGMENT (Per Sri Justice Ravi Cheemalapati) Challenging the order dated 19.01.2021 passed by a learned single Judge in Writ Petition vide W.P.No.43066 of 2018, the petitioners therein preferred Writ appeal vide W.A.No.459 of 2021, whereas the respondent nos.4 and 5 therein preferred Writ Appeal vide W.A.No.l85 of 2021 under clause 15 of Letters Patent. 2. Inasmuch as both the writ appeals stem out of the order dated 19.01.2021 passed in W.P.No.43066 of 2018, they are heard together and being disposed of by this common judgment. 3. The Writ Petition vide W.P.No.43066 of 2018 was disposed of along with Writ Petition vide W.P.No.43748 of 2018 through common orders dated 19.01.2021. 4. The appellant in W.A.No.459 of 2021 filed W.P.No.43066 of 2018 to declare the action of The Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Tullur Mandal, and Tullur Gram Panchayat, rep. by its Panchayat Secretary, in seeking to produce title deeds to the property bearing Door No.6-99, situated in Tullur village and Mandal, Guntur District (for short, 'subject property'), as ^{CJ ei <RC3 'W.JA.J^i'os.lSS ei 459 of 2021 .No.43748 of 2018 was filed by one the action of respondent nos. 2 to 5 therein dated 19.03.2018 for removal of respondent therein (appellant no.2 in W.A.No.459 illegal and arbitrary. Whereas, W.P Kommineni Ndrendra questioning in not considering his representation encroachment made by 6 of 2021). Judge disposed of both the writ petitions by order. Through the said order, the learned single Judge declined to .No.43066 of 2018 holding that request of ine the title of the petitioners cannot be said to ascertain a fact. However, of the 5. The learned single common grant first part of the prayer in W.P respondent nos. 4 and 5 to examine bad, since they were trying to be per se observing that since petitioner no.l had proved his possession by restraining the respondents property, granted second part of the prayer interfere with the petitioners' possession except by following due not to of law. The learned single Judge further held that in view of the process orders passed in W.P.No.43006 of 2018, no further orders are warranted in W.P.No.43748 of 2018. 6. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the learned single Judge declining grant first part of the relief, the petitioners in W.P.No.43066 of 2018 preferred Writ Appeal No.459 of 2021, whereas assailing the orders passed by to .WJl.3Vos.18J eZ 459 of2021 5 the learned single Judge in restraining them from interfering with possession of the petitioners, the respondent nos.4 and 5 therein preferred Writ Appeal No.185 of 2021. 7. The contents of the Writ Petition can briefly be summarized as under: The first petitioner is father of second petitioner. The grandmother of petitioner No.2 got the property from her father and after her death the property devolved upon the petitioners and ever since they have been in possession and enjoyment of the property. The petitioners and their predecessors have been in possession and enjoyment of the subject property since more than 60 years. The Gram Panchayat, Tullur issued notice dated 17.11.2018 calling upon the petitioners to produce title documents to the subject property. The Gram Panchayat has no power to decide title and evict a person and further since the property is claimed to be situated in grama kantam, the provisions of Land Encroachment Act are not applicable and the dispute, if any, regarding right and title can only be decided by competent civil Court. Therefore, the impugned notice of Gram Panchayat is illegal and void. Therefore, to set aside the notice and direct the respondents not to interfere with their possession and enjoyment of the subject property. 14XA.H^os. 185 dl 459 of2021 8. The Gram Panchayat filed counter affidavit stating that the subject property is a union site and the villagers by contributing funds got constructed a choultry therein meant for rest of the travelers going through the village. That the petitioners have no right and title over the property and they are only encroachers and the tax receipts wrongly issued by the then secretary do not confer any right or title to the petitioners over the subject property. That the petitioners did not produce any documents in response to the notice, the panchayat had taken over possession of the subject property. as 9. To the counter affidavit, the petitioners filed rejoinder asserting that they have been in possession of the subject property even on that day. 10. Upon considering the pleadings as well as submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the learned single Judge disposed of the writ petition as indicated above. Assailing the same, both these Writ Appeals came to be filed. 11. Heard Sr/ Venkateswara Rao Gudapati, learned counsel for appellants in W.A.No.459 of 2021 and Sri Mattegunta Sudhir, learned Standing Counsel for Gram Panchayat, for appellants in W.A.No.185 of 2021. . JfCJ ‘KCJ .WJl.fA^os. 185 ei 459 of2021 f 12. Sn Venkateswara Rao Gudapati, learned counsel, while reiterating the contents of the writ affidavit and grounds of appeal in W.A.No.459 of 2021 would contend that the subject property is situated in Survey No.76-A2, whereas the claim of the Gram Panchayat is with regard to the site situated in Survey No.72/A2, which has nothing to do with the subject property. He would further contend that the subject site is situated in Grama Natham and the same is ancestral property of the appellants and as such no documents would be available. He would further contend that Grama Panchayat has no right or jurisdiction to go into and decide title over any property, however, the learned single Judge, instead of setting aside the notice, erroneously observed that the Grama panchayat is only trying to ascertain a fact by directing the appellants to produce their documents. The observations of the learned single Judge are unsustainable and would amount to conferring exclusive jurisdiction of the civil Court in deciding title over the property upon Grama Panchayat. Accordingly, prayed to allow the writ appeal setting aside the order passed by learned single Judge so far as it relates to permitting the Gram Panchayat to direct the petitioners to produce property documents. 13. Per contra, Sri Mattegunta Sudhir, learned counsel for appellants in W.A.No.185 of 2021 while reiterating the contents of the counter affidavit and TfCJ ei ^3 W.A-J^os.l85 ei 459 of2021 grounds of appeal would contend that as the writ petitioners failed to submit Panchayat had taken over possession of the and hence the orders passed by the learned single Judge W.A.No.185 of any title documents, the Gram subject property restraining the respondents in writ petition (appellants in 2021) from interfering with possession of the property does not arise, the order passed by the learned single Judge so far as the restraint unsustainable and the same is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, Therefore, orders is prayed to allow the writ petition. record and considered the 14. Perused the material available on submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 15. The material discloses that in the year 2008, the Tahsildar, Tulluru issued notice to the writ petitioners. The said notice states that the writ unauthorizedly occupied the subject property since several years. petitioners collecting rents from shop keepers and appropriating the amounts. However, to the said notice. The it seems no action whatsoever was taken in pursuance impugned notice of the year 2018 states that the petitioners are in possession according to the respondent of the subject property. Therefore, even authorities, the petitioners have been continuing in possession of the subject * -r-. '.WA.JVos. 185 e£ 459 of2021 9 property since several years prior to the date of issuance of the notice in the year 2008. 16. The Gram Panchayat claims to have recovered possession of the subject property subsequent to issuance of notice of the year 2018, which was repudiated by the petitioners by filing rejoinder claiming that they have been continuing in possession of the property even as on the date of filing the said rejoinder. Except the oral assertions, the Gram Panchayat did not choose to place on record any document such as panchanama evidencing recovery of possession of the property from the petitioners. A conjoint reading of both the notices of the years 2008 and 2018 give out that the petitioners are in settled possession of the subject property much prior to 2008. It is a settled position of law that a person in settled possession of a property cannot be dispossessed except under due process of law. The Gram Panchayat did not choose to state as to when and in what manner they took over possession over the property and the procedure adopted by them for doing so. 17. Further, as per the principle of presumption of continuity, once a state of affairs is shown to have existed on a particular date, it is presumed to continue to exist until evidence is presented to show that it has ceased to exist. Admittedly, the petitioners are in possession of the property as on the mo ei ‘R£j n'.^.^A^osJSS ei 459 of2021 10 date of issuance of notice impugned in the writ petition and in the absence of presented by Gram Panchayat, it can be presumed that possession of the petitioners over the subject property continue to exist. any evidence already stated, the Gram Panchayat did not choose to produce evidence to substantiate their contention regarding taking over possession of the property. Therefore, the learned single Judge had rightly restrained the official respondents from interfering with writ petitioners' possession except by following due process of law. This Court does not see any grounds to interfere with the orders so passed by the learned single Judge. The writ appeal vide W.A.No.l85 of 2021 being meritless deserves 18. As any dismissal. 19. Coming to the grievance of the appellants in W.A.No.459 of 2021, undoubtedly, civil Courts possess jurisdiction to adjudicate contested claims title and the administrative or revenue authorities cannot regarding property decide such disputes. The impugned notice directs the appellants in W.A.No.459 of 2021 to produce title documents regarding the subject property. As rightly held by the learned single Judge, the contents of the writ to how their predecessors Except tax receipt, the petitioners did not petition filed by the appellants lacks clarity as acquired the subject property. ^C3 ei <KCJ .WJlMos.185 ei 459 of2021 11 produce any document which confers ownership over the subject property on their predecessors-in-title. Though the Grama Panchayat authorities cannot decide the title over the property, however, they can direct a party to produce documents of title to ascertain the factum as to whether a party has any right the property to initiate the consequential steps. The learned single Judge upon noticing that claims advanced by the writ petitioners as well as Gram Panchayat authorities lack clarity and further they are riddled with disputed questions of fact which can only be established in a Court of law after proper trial and evidence had rightly held that the request made by Grama Panchayat authorities for production of documents of title cannot be said to be bad, since intended to ascertain a fact. Further, from the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants in W.A.No.459 of 2021 that the appellants/ writ petitioners have filed a suit for declaration of title and the same is pending, it is evident that the contention raised contra that there is no cloud over title of the petitioner over the property and therefore the learned single Judge ought not to have permitted the Gram Panchayat to verify the title documents, is unsustainable. Hence, the order passed by the learned single Judge sought to be assailed by the appellants in W.A.No.459 of 2021 does not over .WJl.9fos.l8S dl 459 of2021 12 r6quir6 int6rfer6nc6 of this Court. Tho writ appoal lacks merits and the same deserves dismissal. 20. In the above view of the matter, both the writ appeals are liable to be dismissed. 21. Accordingly, both the writ appeals are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand dosed. Sd/- V.DIWAKAR DEPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, 1. OneCCto Sri. Venkateswara Rao Gudapati Advocate [OPUC] GP for Panchayat Raj and Rural Dev, High Court of 2. Two CCs to Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 3. One CC to Sri. M Sudhir SC for ZPP, MPP And GP [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies gsc ':.v^ HIGH COURT DATED:12/08/2025 COMMON ORDER WA NOS. 185 AND 459 OF 2021 ^ user 2025 ^ . Current Seciion ^^*«^£espATCv^S^ ,1 • ,f—‘***^" yo m ac dismissing the was WITHOUT COSTS