IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH ;; AMARAVATI MONDAY .THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN AND THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO WRIT APPEAL Nos: 403 AND 4340F 2023 WRIT APPEAL NO: 403 OF ?C)9:i Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the orders dated 24-08-2022 in W.P.No.37389/2017 on the file of the High Court. Between: 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Dept. Government of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Velagapudi Amaravati, Guntur District , c ui. Administration, Gollapudi, ^ Di^^rici)*^^*^'^^ Collector, Chittoor District, Chittoor (Present Tirupati 4. The Tahsildar, Tirupati Rural Mandal, at Tirupati 2. The Chief Commissioner of Land Vijayawada, Krishna District ...APPELLANTS AND ^ ^ Rajagopalachari Aged 75 years, R/o. D.No.167, T.P Area. Tirupati, Chittoor District (Present Tirupati District) W/o. Dr T E Kathuri Aged about 55 years, R/o. D. No. 167, T P Area Tirupati, Chittoor District (Present Tirupati District) Rajagopalachari Aged about 77 years, R/o. District) Chittoor District (Present Tirupati 4. P. Raja Gopal, Tahsildar, Tirupathi Rural Mandal, Chittoor District. ...RESPONDENTS lA NO: 2 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances seated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the order dated- 24-08-2022 W.P.No.37389/2017, pending disposal of the writ appeal. Counsel for the Appellants : GP FOR ASSIGNMENT Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 : SRI N. SUBBA RAO SENIOR COUNSEL REPRESENTING SRI M. DEVI PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : NONE APPEARED WRIT APPEAL NO: 434 OF 2023 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the order dated.24-8-2022 in W.P.No. 14395/2016 on the file of the High Court. Between: 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, A. P. Secretariat, Hyderabad. (Present Veiagapudi, Amaravati, A.P.) 2. The District Collector, Chittoor District, A.P ( Present Tirupati District) ^ DiSricf)^^'*^^'^’ Mandal, Chittoor District (Present Tirupati ...APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS made in AND 1. Dr. T.E.Kasthuri, S/o.T E Rajagopalachari, Aged 75 years DiSricO^’^^^’ ^ ^ Tirupati, Chittor District,(Present Tirupati T E Kathuri Aged about 55 years, R/o. D No 167, T P Area Tirupati, Chittoor District (Present Tirupati District) Rajagopalachari Aged about 77 years, R/o D No 167, T.P. Area, Tirupati, Chittoor District (Present Tirupati District) ...RESPONDENTS/WRIT PETITIONERS 4. Vundela Gurivi Reddy. S/o. V.PeddaObula Reddy Aged 68 years, R/o. D.No. 2/759-UP, Bakarapeta Street, Produttur village and Post, Produttur Mandal, Kadapa District. 5. Pathakota Dasthagiri Reddy, S/o. P.Gurivi Reddy Aged about 42 years Rio D.No. 3/210, YMR Colony, Proddutur village and post Proddutur Mandal, Kadapa District. 6. Paddareddy Lavaleenath Reddy, S/o. P.Lakshmana Reddy Aged 53 years, R/o. D.No. 1-61, Thondavada Villageand Post Chandragiri Mandal, Chittoor District (Present Tirupati District) 7. M/s. Sree Minerals, Rep by its Managing Partner, B.V.Srinivasulu Reddy S/o. VenkataReddy Aged about 54 years, r/o Srinagar Colony, Siriguppa Road, Near Arunodhaya Hospital, ward No. 35, Bellary, Karnataka. ...UNOFFICIAL RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 8. The Director General and Inspector General of Registrations, A.P. Hyderabad ( Present Amaravati, Guntur District). 9. The District Registrar, Balaji Registration District, Tirupati. Chittoor District (Present Tirupati District). 10.The Sub Registrar, Renigunta, Chittoor District ( Present Tirupati District) ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS lA NO: 2 OF 2023 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; 24-08-2022 made in W.P.No.14395/2016, pending disposal of the writ appeal. Counsel for the Appellants : GP FOR ASSIGNMENT Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 : SRI N. SUBBA RAO Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 to 7 : SRI P. NAGESWARA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.8 to 10 : GP FOR ROADS & BUILDINGS The Court made the following: COMMON JUDGMENT 1 RRRJ & Dr. KMR,J W.A.Nos.403 & 434/2023 APHC010183762023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3525] MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO WRIT APPEAL NOs: 403 & 434 of 2023 W.P.Nos.403 & 434 of 2023 Between: The State Of Andhra Pradesh, and Others ...APPELLANT(S) AND Dr T E Kasthuri and Others ...RESPONDENT{S) Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1 .GP FOR ASSIGNMENT (AP) Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.N SUBBA RAO RRRJ &Dr. KMR ' W.A.Nos.403 & 434/202. The Court made the following Order: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) As both the writ appeals arise out of the disputes in relation to the same land and the claims ownership over this land are parties to both the writ appeals, they are being disposed of by way of this common order. 2. Heard learned G.P. for Revenue appearing for the appellants and Sri N. Subba Rao, learned Senior Counsel learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3. Respondents 1 to 3, in both the writ appeals, claim ownership over Ac.3.35 cents of land in Sy.No.20/1 of Damineedu Village, Tirupati Mandal. The land is said to have been acquired by way of two separate deeds of sale registration document Nos.368/1997 and 449/1998. Respondents 1 to 3 are said to have purchased Ac. 1.67 14 cents each under these sale, aggregating to Ac.3.35 cents. representing Sri M. Devi Prasad 3. Rural two deeds of 4. An extent of Ac.4.85 cents of land situated in S.No.20/1 is said to be private patta land, owned by one Sri P. Gopal Naidu, under patta No. 187, which was granted in his favour in 1406 Fasli. During his lifetime, he is said to have sold Ac 1.50 cents, to Sri B.P. Venkateswarlu. Upon his death in 1997, his wife and three daughters, who were his successors in interest, sold the remaining extent, of Ac.3.35 cents out of Ac.4.85 cents, to the vendors of respondents 1 to 3 herein, by way of a registered deed of sale. Thereafter, I respondents 1 to 3 acquired the said land under two registered deeds of sale 3 RRR,J & Dr. KMR,J W.A.Nos.403 & 434/2023 registered as document Nos.368/1997 and 449/1998, registered with the Sub- Registrar, Chandragiri and Sub-Registrar, Renigunta respectively. After purchase of the said lands, respondents 1 to 3 are said to have moved the Office of the Chief Commissioner, Land Administration, for providing copies of certain records and more specifically, the letter of the District Collector, dated 14.02.1997. However, the same was not given on the ground that the said record was not available. 5. 6. On 10.03.2008, a news item was published in Andhra Jyothi, stating that huge extents of land had come into the possession of persons, who were not entitled to the said land and the Government should take steps to recover the said lands. On the basis of this complaint, the Hon’ble Lokayukta had a initiated suo moto enquiry in the matter. Respondents 1 to 3 are said to have participated in the enquiry by producing documents. The Hon’ble Lokayukta, after a detailed enquiry into the matter and after considering the material placed before him, had dismissed the complaint holding that the land is private land. 7. It may also be noticed that the Hon’ble Lokayukta, at the beginning of the enquiry, had by proceedings, dated 19.03.2008, directed the District Collector, Chittoor District and the Registration authorities not to register any transactions on the said land. After the dismissal of the complaint before the Hon’ble Lokayukta, respondents 1 to 3 had approached this Court, byway of W.P.No.11457 of 2011, contending that the land of respondents 1 to RRR, J & Dr. KMR,J W.A.Nos.403 & 434/2023 the prohibitory list, despite dismissal same is impermissible. A learned of Andhra Pradesh, by order dated 3 continued to be placed in complaint by the Hon’ble Lokayukta and the of the Single Judge of the erstwhile High Court 25.01.2012, directed deletion of the property of respondents 1 to 3 from the prohibitory iist. Aggrieved by this order, the State had moved W.A.No.305 of 2012, which came to be dismissed by order, dated 07.08.2012, confirming the order of the learned Single Jodge. However, the Division Bench also observed that it would be open to the authorities to take such steps as they deem fit, in accordance with law, for setting up their claim. 8. The Director and Inspector General of Registration issued Memo No.G1/9065/2013 and Stamps, dated 22.04.2015 treating the land as Government land and adding it to the prohibitory list of Government lands. This came to light when respondents 1 to 3 sought to sell their land for family in the prohibitory list, by Registration and Stamps, for removal of their lands writ petition, the Tahsildar dated 05.10.2017 cents vests with the Government proceedings, respondents 1 to 3 necessities. Aggrieved by the inclusion of their lands way of the Memo issued by the Inspector General of respondents 1 to 3 moved W.P.No.14395 of 2016 from the prohibitory list. During the pendency of this again issued proceedings bearing No. R.Dis.(A)403/2016, stating that the entire extent of Ac.4.85 as Upparapalem Tank. Aggrieved by these again filed W.P.No.37389 of 2017. 5 RRR, J & Dr. KMR,J W.A.Nos.403 & 434/2023 9. Both these writ petitions were heard by a learned Single Judge of this Court and allowed, by a common order, dated 24.08.2022. As a contempt case in C.C.No.1299 of 2022 had also been filed for violation of the orders of this Court in W.P.No.14395 of 2016, the same was also disposed of by way of the very same common order. 10. Aggrieved by the common order dated 24.08.2022, in W.P.Nos.14395 of 2016, and W.P.No.27289 of 2017, passed by the learned Single Judge, the State has filed these writ appeals. The appeals came to be dismissed by a Division Bench of this 11. Court on 02.05.2023 on the ground of delay in filing the appeals. Aggrieved by the said order, the State approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court condoned the delay in filing the appeals, and set aside the order of the Division Bench and remanded the matter back to this Court for consideration on merits of the case. The case of the State is that Damineedu Village was an inam- 12. estate village, which comes under the purview of the Estate Abolition Act, 1948. In 1963 a suo moto enquiry was commenced by the Settlement Officer in relation to grant of ryotwari pattas to an extent of Ac.459.77 cents in various survey numbers of Damineedu village including Sy.No.20/1, which measures Ac.4.85 cents. While proceedings in the suo moto enquiry were pending, applications were moved before the Settlement Officer, under Section 15(1) of the Estate Abolition Act, 1948, in 1969 for grant of ryotwari pattas over 6 RRRJ & Dr. KMR,, W.A.Nos.403 & 434/2023 Ac. 174.30 cents of land. The Settlement Officer, after enquiry into the matter, through proceedings in S.R.No.1/15(1)/69/CTR, dated 25.08.1969, had granted ryotwari pattas in favour of four claimants. Aggrieved by this order, the District Collector had preferred an appeal before the Estate Abolition Tribunal, by way of A.S.No.33/1974 and the same came to be dismissed on merits. This order had become final as no writ petition had been filed against the said order, in the appeal. Thereafter, the Settlement Officer, in the suo moto enquiry proceedings, which had been registered under S.R.No.566/15(1 )/63, passed an order, dated 16.10.1974 rejecting the claim of the claimants. In view of the said rejection order, no claim can be made to the land in question and the purchase of land by respondents 1 to 3, from the persons claiming through these proceedings, does not confer any title in favour of respondents 1 to 3. Apart from this, the land in question is actually covered by a water body known as Upparapalem Tank. Such a tank would amount to a communal property which would vest absolutely in State and no ryotwari patta can be issued in relation to the said land. 13. The State also took the objection that there were no revenue entries showing ownership or possession of the land, in favour of respondents 1 to 3 or their vendors and the only entry available in the revenue record is an entry under 10(1) Adangal without mentioning any proceedings on the basis of which such an entry has been made. The State, on the basis of these grounds contended that there is no right or title in favour of respondents 1 to 3 to 7 RRR,J&Dr. KMR,J W.A.Nos.403 & 434/2023 enable them to approach this Court by way of writ petitions or to seek deletion of property from the prohibitory list. 14. The learned Single Judge, after considering these submissions as well as the submissions made on behalf of respondents 1 to 3, was pleased to allow the writ petitions, by an order dated 24.08.2022, setting aside the impugned proceedings with a direction to delete the properties from the prohibitory list. Aggrieved by this order, the State has filed these writ appeals. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue would reiterate the 15. objections raised before the learned Single Judge. Learned Government Pleader would submit that the learned Single Judge had not considered the fact that a ryotwari patta could not have been granted by the Settlement Officer, in 1969 even while the suo moto enquiry initiated in 1963 is still pending. In any event, the order of the Settlement Officer, in 1974, rejecting the applications for grant of ryotwari patta on this land, is sufficient to demonstrate that the land is Government land, which is assessed waste dry land and consequently, no ryotwari patta could have been granted over the said land. Sri N. Subba Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for 16. respondents 1 to 3, would submit that this is the third round of litigation as the State has taken an adamant stand. He would submit that the State, except making allegations of manipulation and fraud, had not set out any material to demonstrate the same. On the other hand, the records of the State itself 8 RRRJ&Dr. KMR,J W.A.Nos.403 & 434/2023 would demonstrate that the land in question is private patta land and could not have been treated as Government land. Consideration of the Court: There is no dispute, by either side, that Damineedu Village is an inam estate village falling within the ambit of the Estate Abolition Act, 1948. A claim of title, in the land, would have to be traced either to private pattas existing prior to the commencement of Estate Abolition Act, 1948 or to cultivation of the land on the basis of which ryotwari pattas have been issued under the provisions of the Estate Abolition Act. In the present case, respondents 1 to 3 traced their title through a person, who is said to have obtained such ryotwari patta to an extent of Ac.4.85 cents in Sy.No.20/1 of Damineedu Village. The documents placed before this Court would show that the person, who is said to have obtained such a patta, had initially sold Ac. 1.50 cents of land to one purchaser and that the legal heirs of the pattadar, after the demise of the pattadar, had sold the remaining extent of Ac.3.35 cents to respondents 1 to 3. The issue that arises for consideration before this Court is - Whether grant of patta in favour of the private pattadar / person, who had been granted ryotwari patta, had a proper claim to the said patta and whether the land would be Government land. The record, placed before this Court, shows that a suo moto enquiry for gr^pt of ryotwari patta had been initiated by the Settlement Officer 17. 18. 19. 20. 9 RRRJ & Dr. KMR,J W.A.Nos.403 & 434/2023 in the year 1963. During the pendency of this enquiry, applications were moved for grant of ryotwari pattas in 1969 and pattas were issued to the applicants. Subsequently, the Settlement Officer, while completing suo moto enquiry, had rejected the claims for grant of ryotwari pattas. Proceedings in the year 1974 do not mention the earlier proceedings of 1969 where the Settlement Officer had granted patta. The State relies upon the proceedings dated 16.10.1974 of the Settlement Officer to contend that the application for patta was rejected because the land was Government land and classified as assessed waste land and consequently no private claim can be made over the land. However, a closer perusal of the order, dated 16.10.1974, reads otherwise. The operative part of the said order of the Settlement Officer dated 16.10.1974 reads as follows: “The Tahsildar, Chandragiri in his Re.El.9524/74, dated 25.09.1974 has stated that he wants to inspect the lands, examine the matter in detail and file counters and that this case may be posted in the first week of November, 1974. This is a case of 1963 and notices were sent to him long back. They were published on the notice board of the Taluk Officer, Chandragiri on 01.06.1963. So it is not correct to report that prescribed notices for publication have also not been received. As per the field staff reports, the schedule mentioned lands are wastelands never used for agriculture purpose. They were the private lands of the land holders but subsequently alienated to ryots. They were waste land non ryoti in nature. As such the land holders have failed to prove their claim u/s 15(1) of the Estate Abolition Act. I therefore reject the claims u/s 15(1) of the Estate Abolition Act. The lands will be treated as A W lands.” 21. This order specifically states that the land in question was private land of the land holders, which was alienated to the ryots. In such a case, it is 10 RRR, J & Dr. KMR,J W.A.Nos.403 & 434/2023 not clear as to how the settlement Officer would have rejected the claims of the applicants. In any event, the finding of the Settlement Officer, in proceedings, dated 16.10.1974, is that the land is private land of the land holders. Another aspect of the matter is that the lands were never assessed waste lands and it was the direction of the Settlement Officer that the lands should be treated as assessed waste lands. The record shows that steps were initiated, for alienating the land 22. in Sy.No.20/1 to M/s. India Tourism Development Corporation for construction of a Star Category Hotel. The District Collector, Chittoor, was directed to look into the matter by way of a Government Memo No.17379/Assn.IV(2)/96, dated 04.04.1996. The District Collector responded to this enquiry by way of his letter, dated 14.02.1997, in D.Dis.8123/96. In this communication, to the Secretary to the Government, Revenue Department, the District Collector had stated that the land was classified as patta land in the name of Sri B.P. Venkateswarlu of Tirupati, and the said B.P. Venkateswarlu, was objecting to alienation of land in favour of M/s. India Tourism Development Corporation. The District Collector concluded his communication by stating that the land would have to be acquired if it was to be allotted to M/s. India Tourism Development Corporation. This letter has not been denied by the State in any of the pleadings. As mentioned above, the Hon’ble Lokayukta had initiated an enquiry, in the year 2008, regarding the ownership of the land. The Hon’ble 23. V 11 RRRJ&Dr. KMR,J W.A.Nos.403 & 434/2023 Lokayukta observed that the order of grant of pattas by the Settlement Officer on 25.08.1969 was based on proper enquiry and the appeal filed against the said grant of patta before the Estate Abolition Tribunal had also been dismissed. The Hon’ble Lokayukta also recorded that the original order of the Settlement Officer, passed in the year 1969, had been referred to the forensic laboratory by the District Collector and the Forensic Laboratory had reported that, the order, passed in 1969, is a genuine order passed by the Settlement Officer. The Hon’ble Lokayukta took the view that the subsequent order of the Settlement Officer in 1974 cannot be considered in view of the earlier order passed in 1969 and there is no power in the Settlement Officer to pass order in the nature of an order of review. On the basis of these observations the Hon’ble Lokayukta had dismissed the complaint. an 24. After the order of dismissal, respondents 1 to 3 moved W.P.No.11457 of 2011 for removing the property from the prohibitory list. No objection of any nature appears to have been raised before the learned Single Judge, who allowed the writ petition on 25.01.2012. Thereafter, W.A.No.1692 of 2014 was filed wherein some objections appear to have been taken. However, the Division Bench dismissed the writ appeal leaving it open that the objections to be raised appropriately. No steps appear to have been taken for raising such objections. Instead, the State, in the form of the Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, had issued a Memo placing the lands in the prohibitory list. 12 RRR, J & Dr. KMRJ -3^ W.A.Nos.403 & 434/2023 It may also be noted that the contention of the State that there was a water body in the said land was also never raised at that stage. In the course of proceedings in the writ petitions, which are the subject matter of the present writ appeals, a ground appears to have been raised that the land is covered by water body known as Upparapalem Tank. Respondents 1 to 3, as recorded by the learned Single Judge, had obtained a clarification under the Right to Information Act, from the Deputy Executive Engineer, Urban. In the reply given to the application under Right information Act, the Deputy Executive Engineer had confirmed that there only four tanks in Damineedu Village and there was no tank called Upparapalem Cheruvu in Damineedu Village. This contention controverted before the learned Single Judge. The State has also not refuted the information supplied by the Deputy Executive Engineer, in the grounds of appeal. However, they persisted with their contention that the land is covered by a water body. In the light of the clarification given by the Deputy Executive Engineer, this contention of the State cannot be accepted. The State has produced an extract of the Village map to contend that there is a water body called Upparapalem TankI in Sy.No.20/1. This contention is contrary to the stand of the State, for the past 40 years, that the land is waste land which is incapable of agricultural operations. The expanded village map, of survey 20/1, produced by the State, does not appear to correlate to the entire village map. 25. 26. to were was not now 13 RRR, J & Dr. KMR,J W.A.Nos.403 & 434/2023 The State falls back on the regular plea of fabrication and manipulation of records on the ground that entry in 10(1) Adangal, revenue record is not supported by any proceeding and as such the entry cannot be accepted. As pointed out by the learned Single Judge, the raising of such pleas, on a regular basis, and without backing up such complaints with necessary documents, has resulted in a loss of credibility for the State. In 27. any event, except the statement that the entry is not supported by proceedings, the State has not explained as to when this entry is said to have been manipulated or by whom. In the absence of any specific complaint of manipulation, a general statement that the record has been manipulated, is not sufficient for this Court to accept such a statement. 28. In the circumstances, this Court does not find interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge and the writ accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. any reason to appeals are As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- M.SURYANADHA REDDY DEPUTY .REGISTRAR omcER //TRUE COPY// SEC To. 1. Two CCs to GP for Assignment, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravatl [OUT] 2. Two CCs to GP for Roads & Buildings, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati [OUT] 3. One CC to Sri N. Subba Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri P. Nageswara Rao, Advocate (OPUC) 5. Three C.D. Copies. Cnr HIGH COURT DATED:21/04/2025 COMMON JUDGMENT WA.Nos.403 & 434 of 2023 i 2UPK2825 ^ ^ -sir ^feotior DISMISSING THE WRIT APPEALS WITHOUT COSTS F'