APHC010207222016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 26094 OF 2016 Between: Posina Mutyalaiah S/o Venkaiah (DIED) (as per LRs Petioner Nos. 2 to 5), occ: Agriculturist, R/o Vamsikrishna Rice Mill Road Street, Kota Village and mandal, SPSR Nellore District Posina Venkaiah, S/o Late Posina Muthyalaiah, Aged about 33 years, R/o Vamsikrishna Rice Mill Road Street, Kota Village and Mandal, SPSR District. Posina Masthanamma, W/o Late Muthyalaiah,, Aged about 52 years, Vamsikrishna Rice Mill Road Street, Kota Village and Mandal, SPSR District. Uppala Veena D/o. Late Posina Muthyalaiah,, Aged about 32 years, R/o Vamsikrishna Rice Mill Road Street, Kota Village and Mandal, SPSR District. Ponna Madhavi D/o Late Posina Muthyalaiah, Aged about 36 years, R/o Vamsikrishna Rice Mill Road Street, Kota Village and Mandal, SPSR District. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Petitioner Nos 2 to 5 are brought on record as L.Rs of the deceased sole petitioner in Writ Petition and Affidavit as per the Court Order dt.09.09.2024 vide orders passed in I.A.No. 03 of 2024. ...Petitioners AND 1. State of Andhra Pradesh, rep By its PrI. Secretary, Revenue department, AP Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad. 2. The District Collector, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Gudur, SPSR Nellore District 4. The Tahslidar Chillakur, Chillakur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. 5. Assistant Commissioner Endowments, Dept., Nellore, SPSR Nellore District. 6. The Executive Officer, Sri Sri Mutyalamma Ammavari Temple, East kanupuru Village, Chillakur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF CERTIORARI calling for entire records connected to order in D.Dis.B2.590/2016 dated 31-05-2016 from the file of 3rd Respondent, examine and set aside the same as illegal, irregular, without jurisdiction, violative of principles of natural justice and provisions of Andhra Pradesh Survey And Boundaries Act, 1923, rules framed there under and offends Arts 14, 21 & 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently suspend the operation of order in D.Dis.B2.590/2016 dated 31-05-2016 from the file of 3rd Respondent. lA NO: 1 OF 2016fWPMP 32249 OF 20161 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 order in D.Dis.B2.590/2016 dated 31-05-2016 from the file of 3rd Respondent, pending disposal of the main writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRi POLAPRAGADA SREEMANNARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.5: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS Counsel for the Respondent No.6: SRI A SREEKANTH REDDY (SC FOR ENDOW RS) The Court made the following order; 1 RRR, J W.P.No.26094 of 2016 ' 0 APHC010207222016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3206] FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 26094/2016 Between: ...PETITIONER{S) PosinaMutyalaiah S/o Venkaiah ( Died) and Others AND ...RESPONDENT(S) State Of A P Rep By Its PrI Secretary and Others Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. POLAPRAGADA SREEMANNARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GPFOR REVENUE (AP) 2.GP FOR ENDOWMENTS (AP) 3. A SREEKANTH REDDY(SC FOR ENDOW RS) The Court made the following Order: Heard Sri P. Sreemannarayana, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned G.P. for Revenue appearing for respondents 1 to 4, learned G.P. for Endowments appearing for the respondent and Sri A. Sreekanth Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 6“" respondent-Temple. 2 RRR, J W.P.No.26094 of 2016 2. This writ petition was initially filed by a sole petitioner. Upon his demise during the pendency of the writ petition, petitioners 2 to 5 were brought on record as the legal heirs of the deceased sole petitioner. The petitioners herein shall be referred to as the petitioner, in as much as it was the deceased petitioner, who had signed the affidavit filed in 3. support of the writ petition. 4. The petitioner contends that he is the owner of Ac.0.36 cents out of Ac.0.80 cents in Sy.Nos. 192/1 of East Kanupur Village, Chillakur Mandal, SPSR'Nellore District, having purchased the same from his vendor, by,way of a registered deed of sale, dated 19.12.2005, which was registered under Document No.3629 of 2005. The petitionertraced title to this property to the father of his vendor. The petitioner contends that he had made a representation to the 4'*^ respondent-Tahsildar, Chillakur Mandal, on 16.10.2006 for conduct of survey and fixation of boundaries of his land. Later another representation was made to the 4**^ respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Gudur, after which, the Tahsildar on instructions of the Revenue Divisional Officer, issued 5. a notice, dated 18.10.2006 for conducting enquiry with regard to fixation of boundaries. A survey was also conducted on 20.02.2007, during which the boundaries were fixed in the presence of the local villagers and possession of the land is said to have been handed over to the petitioner. 3 RRR, J W.P.No.26094 of 2016 ' 0 The petitioner has approached this Court with the contention that the 6'*^ respondent, viz., the Executive Officer, Sri SriMutyalammaAmmavari Temple, in the absence of the petitioner from the village, had encroached upon the land of the petitioner and constructed a water tank and pedestal for sacrificial offerings. The petitioner is then said to have initiated correspondence with the respondent. At about the same time, the petitioner had also filed O.S.No.37 of 2010, before the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Gudur, SPSR Nellore District, against two private persons, seeking permanent injunction restraining these persons from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the land by the petitioner. This suit is said to have been dismissed on 24.11.2014 on the ground that the respondent- 6. temple had not been made a party. On 11.04.2016, the 6*^ respondent is said to have challenged the survey conducted earlier, by the Municipal Surveyor. The petitioner also filed a petition, dated 28.04.2016, for removal of encroachments made by the 6**^ respondent and both these issues were taken up by the respondent- Revenue Divisional Officer, by way of an appeal, which was numbered as D.Dis.B2.590/2016. The 4*^ respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, after an enquiry, passed an order directing the 4**^ respondent-Tahsildar to delete the entry of the vender of the petitioner in the revenue records until title is decided by the Civil Court. The aforesaid order, dated 31.05.2016, by the Revenue 7. RRR, J W.P.No.26094 of 2016 Divisional Officer in the above appeal, is under challenge in the present writ petition. 8. The contention of the petitioner is that the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer are based on conclusions, which are not supported by any material. The petitioner disputes the observations of the Revenue Divisional Officer that the address of the vendor of the petitioner, mentioned in the sale deed, is not traceable in the village and that the total extent of land in Sy.No.192/1, appears to be only 36 cents etc. The petitioner also contends that the Revenue Divisional Officer, without ascertaining the right and claim of the 6**^ respondent-temple over the land, had blindly passed an order without verifying any of the facts. 9. A perusal of the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer would show that the Revenue Divisional Officer had merely pointed out to certain facts, which according to the Revenue Divisional Officer, raises substantive doubt as to the title claimed by the petitioner. It may also be seen that the finding of the Revenue Divisional Officer, is not a finding in favour of the Temple, but is a case of doubt being raised by the Revenue Divisional Officer as to the right and entitlement of the petitioner. In any event, once there is a dispute between the 6*^ respondent- temple and the petitioner, the appropriate forum for resolution of such disputes would be the civil Court or the Endowment Tribunal, as the case may be. An 10. 5 RRR, J • W.P.No.26094 of 2016 authoritative pronouncement by the appropriate forum would set at rest all disputes being raised in the present case. In that view of the matter, this Court does not find any reason to 11. interfere with the observations of the Revenue Divisional Officer that a finding by the competent forum would resolve all issues. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order 12. as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. n Sd/- A VIJAYA BABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECffer^FFICER //TRUE COPY// To, One CC to Sri Polapragada Sreemannarayana, Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] Two CCs to GP for Endowments, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] One CC to Sri A Sreekanth Reddy(SC for Endow Rs) Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies A. 2. 3. 4. 5. TF HIGH COURT DATED:18/07/2025 ORDER WP NO. 26094 OF 2016 DISMISSING THE W.P., WITHOUT COSTS