APHC010204702020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3505] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 13372/2020 Between: Raghava Raju Chandra Sekhara Raju ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. GHANTA SRIDHAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following order: 1. The petitioners claim that they are the absolute owners and possessors of lands admeasuring an extent of Ac.4.50 cents and Ac.5.75 cents respectively in Sy.No.360 of Berivani Kandrika Village, Vadamalapeta Mandal, Chittoor District, having purchased by virtue of registered sale deeds dated 26.01.1994. 2. It is further case of the petitioners that subsequent to the said purchase, their names were mutated in revenue records and the 5th respondent issued pattadar passbooks and title deeds in their favour by sub dividing the survey numbers as Sy.No.360/2 and Sy.No.360/1 respectively. It is further case of the petitioners that since the date of purchase, they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said lands without any interruption. 3. It is further case of the petitioners that the properties purchased by them were enumerated in the list of prohibitory properties issued under Section 22-A(1)(b) of the Registration Act, 1908 and upon coming to know about the same, the petitioners made representation dated 02.05.2019 requesting the respondents to delete the subject lands from the prohibited properties list. The 2nd respondent rejected the representation made by the petitioners by virtue of endorsement dated 29.10.2019, based on proceedings in SR.No.F6/5/56(1)/88, dated 07.06.2010 issued by the 3rd respondent whereby and where under the classification of the subject land is changed from patta land to AWD. Questioning the said endorsement, the present writ petition is filed. 4. Heard Sri Ganta Rama Rao, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. Perused the material available on record. 5. It is not in dispute that the subject land is a private patta land and the same is also reiterated in the impugned endorsement dated 29.10.2019. The basis for issuance of the impugned endorsement is that the 3rd respondent issued proceedings dated 07.06.2010 and thereafter the classification of the subject land was changed from patta land to AWD. The learned Senior Counsel strenuously contend that the petitioners have purchased the property by virtue of registered sale deeds dated 26.01.1994. He would further contend that on perusal of the proceedings issued by the 3rd respondent dated 07.06.2010, it is succinctly clear that some third parties have filed claim petition before the 3rd respondent against the vendors of the petitioners. Having filed the said claim petition, neither the claimants nor the petitioners’ vendors appeared before the said authority for enquiry. The 3rd respondent pending enquiry, called for a report from the 5th respondent and pursuant thereto, a report was submitted stating that both the claimants and the petitioners’ vendors were expired long ago. Observing the same, the 3rd respondent dismissed the claim petition filed by the 3rd parties against the vendors of the petitioners’ on the ground that no legal representatives were brought on record. 6. On perusal of the proceedings dated 07.06.2010 issued by the Tahsildar, it is succinctly clear that the classification of the subject land is changed from private patta land to AWD. As already stated the 3rd respondent having dismissed the claim petition filed by the third parties on the ground that no legal representatives were brought on record, he ought not to have ordered for change of classification. Apart from the same, the 3rd respondent did not go into the merits of the matter while issuing the said proceedings. Having dismissed the said petition, for the reasons best known to the 3rd respondent, directed the Officers concerned to change the classification from private patta land to AWD. Further, as noted supra, no reasons are forthcoming for issuance of such direction by the 3rd respondent. Based on the said order, the 5th respondent deleted the names of the petitioners from revenue records by changing the classification as AWD. It is further case of the petitioners that the representation filed by them for deletion of the subject property from the list of prohibited properties is rejected on the only ground that the 3rd respondent issued proceedings dated 07.06.2010. 7. In the case on hand, the petitioners have purchased the property by virtue of registered sale deeds during the year 1994. Whereas, the 3rd respondent has taken up the claim petition filed by third parties for hearing during the year 2010, and the 3rd respondent, without even verifying the subsequent transactions that occurred in the matter, dismissed the claim petition filed by the third parties. Admittedly, as on the date of issuance of proceedings dated 17.06.2010, the vendors of the petitioners has parted away their right, title and interest over the subject lands in favour of the petitioners. Further, the 3rd respondent ought not to have directed the 5th respondent to change the classification of the subject land in as much as the merits of the matter was gone into nor taken steps to see that notices were issued to the persons concerned before initiating any action in the matter. The basis for issuance of impugned endorsement dated 29.10.2019 was the proceedings dated 07.06.2010 issued by the 3rd respondent. Apart from the same, the 2nd respondent did not give any reasons for rejecting the case of the petitioners. 8. Having considered the submissions made by both the counsel, the impugned endorsement dated 29.10.2019 is set aside and the 2nd respondent is directed to consider the case of the petitioners a fresh after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners and pass appropriate orders thereafter, within a period of six (06) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Miscellaneous Applications, if any, pending shall also stand dismissed. _____________________ JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR Dt.22.04.2025 JLV 39 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR W.P.No.13372 of 2020 Date: 22.04.2025 JLV