APHC010209372017 !N THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 8940 OF 2017 Between: 1. Sri K. Sundara Rama Raju, S/o. Late Sri K. Krishnam Raju aged 66 years, R/o. Sy.No. 19/P, Yendada Village Vishakapatnam Rural, Visakhapatnam. 2. Smt K. Savithri, D/o. K. Seshaiah aged 46 years R/o. Sy.No. 19/P, Yendada Village Visakhapatnam Rural, Visakhapatnam....PETITIONERS AND 1. State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep., by its Secretary. Tourism Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur. 2. The District Collector, Visakhapatnam at Visakhapatnam. 3. The Andhra Pradesh Tourism Department, Rep., by its Director, Vuda Complex, Siripuram, Visakhapatnam. 4. Tahsildar, Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal Chinnagadili, Visakhapatnam at Visakhapatnam. 5. Executive Director, Andhra Pradesh Tourism at Visakhapatnam, Vuda Complex Visakhapatnam. 6. District Tourism Officer, Visakhapatnam, Vuda Complex, Visakhapatnam. ...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 an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in trying to disposes the Petitioners No. 19/p of Yendada from their lands in Sy. Village in respectively situated at Visakhapatna illegal & null, void interfere with possession and 19/P of Yendada Village i situated at Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal, an extent of Ac. 2.00 & o.50 cents m Rural Mandal, Visakhapatnam as arbitrary and consequently direct the Respondents not to enjoyment of Petitioner's property in Sy. No. cents respectively in an extent of Ac. 2.00 & 0.50 Visakhapatnam. LA. NO: 1 OF 2017(WPMP jjO: 11078 OF pm 7) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed i be pleased to direct the Respondents their land i ‘ in support of the writ petition, the High Court may not to disposes the petitioners from _ in an extent of Ac. 2.00 & 0.50 at Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal, Visakhapatnam down under law and in Sy.No.19/P of Yendada Village i cents respectively situated without following procedure laid pending disposal of the writ petition. jA NO: 1 OF 2niQ Between: 2 The Visakhapatnam at Visakhapatnam ■ Visakhapatnam^rVisa'kCrnam"' ...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS AND years, R/o.^Sy ^rishnam Raju aged 66 Visakhapatnam^ ’ ^'"^9e Vishakapatnam Rural, SVNO. 19/P, 2&4 ...RESPONDENTS State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep., by its Secretary, Tourism Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur. The Andhra Pradesh Tourism Department, Rep., by its Director, Vuda Complex, Siripuram, Visakhapatnam. The Executive Director, Andhra Pradesh Tourism at Visakhapatnam, 3. 4. 5. Vuda Complex Visakhapatnam. The District Tourism Officer, Visakhapatnam, Vuda Complex Visakhapatnam. 6. ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1,3, 5 & 6 (Respondents 3 to 6 herein are not necessary parties to this petition) 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 vacate the interim order granted on No.11078 of 2017 in WP No.8940 of 2017. 15-03-2017 in WPMP Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI C.B. ADARSH KUMAR (Petitioner No.1) for the Petitioner No.2 : SRI GURRAM RAMA CHANDRA RAO Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1, 3, 5 & 6 : GP FOR TOURISM Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 4 : GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER Counsel APHC010209372017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] WEDNESDAY.THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 8940/2017 Between; 1.SRI K. SUNDARA RAMA RAJU, S/0 LATE SRI K. KRISHNAM RAJU AGED 66 YEARS, R/0. SY.NO. 19/P, YENDADA VILLAGE VISHAKAPATNAM RURAL, VISAKHAPATNAM. 2.SMT K. SAVITHRI, D/O K. SESHAIAH AGED 46 YEARS R/0. SY.NO. 19/P, YENDADA VILLAGE VISAKHAPATNAM RURAL, VISAKHAPATNAM. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, TOURISM DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR. 2.THE DISTRICT VISAKHAPATNAM. COLLECTOR, VISAKHAPATNAM AT 3.THE ANDHRA PRADESH TOURISM DEPARTMENT, REP., BY ITS DIRECTOR, VUDA COMPLEX, SIRIPURAM, VISAKHAPATNAM. 4.TAHSILDAR, VISAKHAPATNAM RURAL MANUAL CHINNAGADILI, VISAKHAPATNAM AT VISAKHAPATNAM. 5. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ANDHRA PRADESH TOURISM AT VISAKHAPATNAM, VUDA COMPLEX VISAKHAPATNAM 6. DISTRICT TOURISM OFFICER, VISAKHAPATNAM, VUDA COMPLEX VISAKHAPATNAM ...RESPONDENT(S): SRS.J W.P.No.8940 of 2017 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 toto issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in trying to disposes the Petitioners from their lands in Sy. No.19/P of Yendada Village in an extent of Ac. 2.00 & 0.50 cents respectively situated at Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal, Visakhapatnam as illegal & null, void, arbitrary and consequently direct the Respondents not to interfere with possession and enjoyment of Petitioner's property in Sy. No. 19/P of Yendada Village in extent of Ac. 2.00 & 0.50 cents respectively situated at VisakhapatnamRural Mandal, Visakhapatnam an lA NO: 1 OF 2017(WPMP 11078 OF 2017 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 direct the Respondents not to disposes the petitioners from their land in Sy.No.19/P of Yendada Village in an extent of Ac. 2.00 & 0.50 cents respectively situated at Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal, Visakhapatnam without following procedure laid down under law and pending disposal of the writ petition lANO: 1 OF 2019 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 Pleased to vacate the interim order granted on 15-03-2017 in WPMP No.11078 of 2017 in WP No.8940 of 2017 and pass lA NO: 1 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 pleased to grant leave to the Petitioners in the WP.No. 8940 of 2017 to file Reply Affidavit in the above writ petition and to pass IANO:2 0F 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 pleased to restore the Writ Petition by setting aside the order dated 17-04- 2023 and to pass SRS.J W.P.No,8940 of 2017 lA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 pleased to grant leave to the Petitioners in W.P. No. 8940 of 2017 to file an Additional Affidavit in support of the Writ Petition and pass lA NO: 2 OF 2024 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 pleased to grant leave to the Respondent No. 2 to file counter and Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1.C BADARSH KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent{S): 1.GPFOR REVENUE (AP) 2.GP FOR TOURISM(AP) pass The Court made the following: :: ORDER :: Impugning the action of respondents in trying to dispossess the petitioners from their land admeasuring Ac.2-00 and Ac.0-50 cents respectively in survey No. 19/P of Yendada village, Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal, Visakhapatnam, the above writ petition has been filed. The averments, in the affidavit, in brief, are that the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued a ryotwari patta for an extent of Ac.2-00 in survey No. 19/P of Yendada Village, in favour of the father of petitioner No.1, late K. Krishnam Raju, in the year 1961. The father of petitioner No.1 used to cultivate the land and reside therein in a thatched house/shed. The shed was damaged due to cyclones. The father of petitioner No.1 died on 11.12.1997, and thereafter the property was devolved upon petitioner No.1. Petitioner No.1 used to cultivate cashew nut, mango, bamboo trees, and cattle shed also exists in the said land. 2. SRS.J W.P.No.8940 of 2017 The Government also assigned ryotwari patta for an extent of Ac.00-50 cents of land in survey No.19/P of Yendada Village, to late K. Sheshaiah, father of petitioner No.2, who in turn, before his death, bequeathed the property to his only daughter, petitioner No.2. Petitioner No.2, during the lifetime and after the death of her father, has owned the Ac.00-50 cents of land. b) The authorities updated their names in the record of rights and assigned survey No.19/P. The Tahsildar, Visakhapatnam (Rural), submitted a report to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam, on 31.01.2014 about the issuance of pattas and possession. Be that as it may, respondents 5 and 6, along with staff, came the land on 02.03.2017 and 03.03.2017 and tried to demolish the structure, contending that the land was allotted to them by the Government. The petitioners resisted the said act and filed the writ petition. 3. The writ petition was admitted on 15.03.2017. An interim order was granted in W.P.M.P.No.11078 of 2017 directing the respondents not to dispossess the petitioners from the aforementioned extent. 4. Respondent No.4 filed a counter-affidavit. It was contended, inter alia, that the village Yendada, along with other villages of Vizianagaram Estate, was taken over, under the provisions of the Estate Abolition Act, 1948 (for short 'E.A.' Act’). After the abolition of the Estate, regular survey and settlement operations were conducted, and they were completed before 1958. The settlement authorities entertained all the claims and determined the new rights under the E.A. Act. As per the office records, the total extent of Ac.85- 20 cents in survey No.19 of Yendada Village is classified as Hill Poramboke. It divided into five subdivisions. The subject land is alienated to various departments, involving A.P. Tourism, Forest Department, GT station and to some extent is covered by the beach road. c) to d) was SRS,J W.P.No.8940 of 2017 b) As per the orders of the District Collector, Visakhapatnam in D.O.Rc.No.799/86/B2 dated 22.01.1986 and 19.03.1986, 00 cents in an extent of Ac. 15- survey No. 19/3 of Yendada village was handed over to the Tourism Department by proceedings Rc.No. 101/84 dated 24.04.1986 and as per the proceedings in Rc.No.799/86/B2 dated 08.05.1987, Ac.51.77 cents in an extent of survey No.19/1, 4 of Yendada village was handed over to the tourism department vide receipt Rc.No. 101/84 dated 09.05.1987. c) Further, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.403/Revenue Dept., dated 30.04.1987, for transforming Ac. 120-00 cents i (B) the land measuring an extent of - in survey No.19 of Yendada village to the Tourism Department for setting up a beach resort complex at Rushikonda village. d) The petitioners were piece of land in survey No.19. The pattas produced by the petitioners fabricated and invented. never in possession and enjoyment of the are fake, 5. A reply affidavit was filed by the petitioners denying the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.4, over Ac.2-50 cents. Along with the reply affidavit, documents; the averments in and they asserted possession petitioners filed the following i) The proceedings issued by the Assistant Anakapalli, vide S.R.No.11(a)/301/61/Vsp whereby ryotwari pattas were issued to K. Krishnam Raju and K. Seshaiah; A copy of endorsement issued by Tahsildar, (Rural) vide SR No.35/2017/C dated 18.05.201 original documents produced by the petitioners the office correspondence, files submitted by the petitioner are genuine. Communication from Tahsildar, L. Dis.No.149/2019 dated 01.05.2019 to Ltd., Visakhapatnam. Settlement Officer, were filed dated 02.08.1961 ii) Visakhapatnam 7, wherein it was stated that were verified with reference to and revenue records and the documents iii) Visakhapatnam (Rural) vide the Divisional Manager, A.PT.D.C. SRS.J W.P.No.8940 of 2017 A counter filed by the Tahsildar in C.C.No.1128 of 2020 in W.P.M.P.No.11078 of 2017. iv) The petitioners also filed additional material papers vide USR No.89210/2023 dated 04.09.2023 by annexing Xerox copies of pattas. 6. Respondent No.2 filed a reply to the memo filed by the petitioners. It pleaded that the signature of the Assistant Settlement Officer and the office seal on the settlement order are not visible. It was further contended that the claim of the petitioners for ryotwari pattas under section 11(a) of EA Act, for the land admeasuring Ac.2-50 cents in old survey No.12 correlated to R.S.No.19 of Yendada village in Visakhapatnam District, whereas it was noticed that in the settlement order the advocate for petitioners contended for O.S.No.llP and it shows variation. The order was issued for R.S.No.19P, and it doesn’t correlate to O.S.No.llP or O.S.No.12. As per the MDR of Yendada village, O.S.No.12 correlates to R.S.No.12 and it was sub-divided into six sub divisions and classified as ryotwari dry. O.S.No.11 correlates to R.S.No.11, and it is sub-divided into 3 sub-divisions and classified as ryotwari dry. Whereas R.S.No.19 correlates to O.S.No.19 to an extent of Ac.85-20 cents, which is classified as hill proamboke. As per the settlement order, there is a difference between the survey number claimed by the petitioner and the survey number contended by the Advocate on behalf of the petitioners. Old survey Nos. 11 and 12 mentioned by them are classified as zeroyiti dry as per the MDR. The order produced by the petitioners seems to be fabricated and invented. Certain documents were filed along with a reply affidavit. 7. was Thereafter, the petitioners filed I.A.No.1 of 2024 seeking leave to file an additional affidavit. The I.A. was ordered on 02.07.2025 vide a separate order. 8. In the additional affidavit, it was pleaded that the Joint Collector -cum- Settlement Officer, Visakhapatnam, through letter Rc.No.884/2023 /F2 dated 03.12.2023, directed the Tahsildar to file an FIR against the petitioners. The original file of S.R.No.ll(a) 301/61/VSP dated 02.08.1961 and rough pattas are not traced out in the office. Police registered a case in crime No.25 of 9. Page 7 of 14 SRSJ W.P.No.8940 of 2017 2024 dated 11.01.2024. Respondents 2 and 4 ought to have requisitioned State Archives regarding the same. Petitioner No.1 applied under RTI for copies of rough pattas and orders of the settlement officer Archives and Research Institute, Tarnaka the the at the State Hyderabad. Through a letter NO.1291/DOC/2020 dated 05.10.2020, the Director, State Archives and Research Institute Tarnaka, Hyderabad, informed petitioner No.1 to collect the attested of Yendada (V), Visakhapatnam copies Rural Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, relating to survey No.19, SFA & MDR, available in its office. Along with the additional affidavit, the petitioners filed attested copies of certain documents. They filed proceedings issued by Assistant Settlement Officer, Anankapalli vide SR No.11(a)/301/61/Vsp dated 25.08.1961, wherein, it was mentioned about the orders passed under Section 11 (a) of the correction of old survey No. 12 correlates to R.S.No.19 of Yendada village, affidavit filed by the Advocate for the E.A. Act, petitioners and consequential amendment. In the references, it was mentioned about the affidavit, dated 18.08.1961, filed by the Advocate and the enquiry report dated 23.08.1961 of the Deputy Tahsildar, (Settlement) O/o Assistant Anakapalli. Settlement Officer, 10. Heard Sri G. Pedda Babu, learned Senior Counsel for the Sri Arjun, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for 2 to 4, and Sri Rasheed, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Tourism for respondents 5 and 6. petitioners; respondents 11. Learned counsel for the petitioners, while reiterating the contentions per affidavit, reply affidavit and additional affidavit, would reassert about ryothwari pattas issued under Section 11(a) of the E.A. Act vide S.R.No.ll(a) /301/61/Vsp, dated 02.08.1961. Learned counsel has also drawn of this Court to the proceedings of the Assistant Settlement Officer, Anakapalli vide S.R.No.11(a)/301/61A/sp. dated 25.08.1961, whereby old as the attention survey No.12 was amended. He also drew the attention of this Court to the communication made by the Tahsildar, Visakhapatnam (Rural) to the Revenue Divisional SRS.J W.P.No.8940 of 2017 Officer, Visakhapatnam vide L.Dis.No.92/2014 dated 31.01.2014, possession certificate and other revenue records. Learned counsel would contend that the petitioners and their predecessors in interest have been in possession and enjoyment of the property right since 1961. 12. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue reiterated the arguments as per the averments made in the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.4 and reply affidavit filed by respondent No.2. For the sake of convenience, this Court intends to exhibit the documents as under. This court is conscious that marking of exhibits in a writ petition may not be warranted. However, considering the pleading of the respondent authorities regarding the fake and fabrication of documents, and the certified copies filed by the petitioner obtained from the State Archives Department, exhibit numbers are given to the documents. . 13. 14. Particulars of the document Exhibit No. Proceedings S.R.No.11(a) 301/61A/sp dated 02.08.1961 of the Assistant Settlement Officer, Anakapalli Proceedings S.R. No.11(a) 301/61A/sp dated 25.08.1961 of Assistant Settlement Officer, Anakapalli (amendment Ex.P1 EX.P2 order) Rough Pattas obtained from the State Archives and Research Institute, Tarnaka, Hyderabad, under RTI The communication made by Visakhapatnam (Rural) to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam vide L.Dis.No.92/2014 dated 31.01.2014 Possession certificates issued by Tahsildar, Visakhapatnam (R), vide L.Dis.No.215/12 and 216/12 dated 07.04.2012 EX.P3 the Tahsildar, EX.P4 EX.P5 Survey bounded report, dated 24.03.2006 EX.P6 SRS.J W.P.No.8940 of 2017 EX.P7 (Ruraiy^^ L.Dis.No.128/03 dated 14.08.2003 Ryotvra'^~pattas~ii^(]^d~^^ Seshaiah Ex.P8 Krishnam Raju and K. Ex.pg En dorsemenUideTpj4o?r^^ Endorsement issued (Rural) vide SR dated 13.03.2013 Ex.PIO by Tahsildar, Visakhapatna NO.35/2017/C dated certifying that the documents filed by the m 18.05.2017, authority are genuine. ^-®^^®'^^^bressed’byTahsildaiV^akhapatna the Divisional Manager, A.P.T.D.C. vide L.Dis.No. 149/2019 dated 01.05.2019. Ex.P11 m (Rural) to Ltd., Visakhapatnam Exhibit No. Particulars of the document Ex.Rl Proposed alienation proceedings filed along with the counter of respondent No.4. Ex.R2 Proceedings of Collector dated 31.05.1987 Visakhapatnam, Rural to the Collector, vide Rc.No. 1073/93 HA dated 27.01.1994 reply of respondent No.2 Ex.R3 Revenue Officer, Visakhapatnam, Ex.R4 along with 15. A perusal of Ex.P1/proceedings of the Seftlement Officer issued under the E.A. Act would manifest issuance of a ryothwari patta under Section 11(a) of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948, in favour of K. Krishnam Raju, S/o Rama Seshaiah, S/o late K. Venkanna i Raju and K. in respect of land of an extent of Ac.2-50 cents in old survey No. 12 correlates to R.S.No.19 Visakhapatnam. The operative of Yendada village, portion of the proceedings reads as follows; Paoe 10 of 14 SRS.J W.P.No.8940 of 2017 “The records and Nazarana receipts filed by the advocate on behalf of the petitioners shows that the scheduled land is a zeroyathi dry and the petitioners are entitled for ryotwari patta under the provisions of section 11(a) of A.P. (Andhra Area) Estate (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act 1948. Accordingly, I have no other alternative remedy available under law to confirm their rough pattas and granted ryotwari for the scheduled land in view of the recorded evidence placed before me by the Advocate for the petitioners”. Thereafter, the survey number was amended by proceedings (Ex.P2), wherein it was mentioned that old survey No.12 correlates to old R.S.No.19, which was amended as old survey No.19 correlates to R.S.No.19 of Yendada village. 16. 17. Ex.P1 proceedings of Assistant Settlement Officer, Anakapalli and the Rough pattas (P3), are obtained by the petitioner, under the RTI Act from the State Archives and Research Institute, Tarnaka, Hyderabad. Ex.P2 contains the seal of the Assistant Settlement Officer. The names of the patta holders were updated in the ROR, and they were also issued Pattadar Passbooks. 18. Archives are the documents that have accumulated over the course of an organisation’s existence and are kept to demonstrate the organisation's function. Archives ensure that the records of today are preserved for future generations. As per Andhra Pradesh State Archival Policy, 2018, available on Andhra Pradesh State Administrative Website, after the formation of the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh on 01.10.1953, all the records of the Telugu-speaking Districts of the Erstwhile Madras State were transferred to the newly created Andhra Record Office at Kurnool, the then capital of the Andhra State. After the formation of Andhra Pradesh on 01.11.1956, the Andhra Office merged with the Central Record Office, Hyderabad on 01.05.1957 and all the Records which were preserved in Kurnool were transferred to the Central Record Office, Hyderabad. The Central Record SRS.J W.P.No.8940 of 2017 Office was re-organised as Andhra Pradesh State Archives National Archives of India in 1962 under the Third Five-Year plan (1961- 1966). The State Archives was a Department. Later, it was recognised as a Research Institute by Osmania University in 1992. The Andhra Pradesh State Archives and Research Institute is under the control of the Department of Higher Education. In the on the pattern of year 1997, the Government approved Archival Policy Resolution in respect of Records of Andhra Pradesh, which is still in force. 19. The records relevant to the District Administration (Collectorates and state Government Officers at District level); Rural Local Bodies; Urban Local Bodies; the State Public Sector undertakings; Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission and such of the attached subordinate offices, offices of may be determined from time to time, will be archives and those records will be department as transmitted to the preserved. Those records will be supplied to Information Act, 2005. Any an application made under the Right information furnished by the archives on under the Right to Information Act the document itself is evidence. The documents obtained from archives documents under Sections 74 to 79 of Bharatiya Sakshya are public Adhinayam 2023. 20. It is pertinent to mention here that dated 31.01.2014, to RDO, the Tahsildar addressed a letter, Visakhapatnam (Ex.P4) and confirmed issuance of pattas to the predecessors of the petitioners and the interest of the petitioners the over the subject land. Further, 18.05.2017, (Ex.PIO) issued by certifying the documents produced by the settlement patta, report dated 31.01.2014 an endorsement dated the Tahsildar, Visakhapatnam (Rural) petitioners, i.e. the rough pattas, and possession certificates are genuine, demonstrates genuineness of Exs.P1 the petitioners and P3 and the possession of over the subject land. The letter dated 01.05.2019 addressed by the Tahsildar to the Divisional (Ex.PII), Manager of the Andhra Pradesh Tourism Department, also strengthens the petitioners possession. case regarding their SRS.J W.P.No.SS^O of 2017 while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of Of course, this Court 21. the Constitution of India, normally, will not declare the title of the parties. This of the documents given the Court ventured to discuss the genuineness contentions of respondents 2 and 4 that 'the pattas are fabricated and hence, This Court concludes that Exs. relevance can be placed upon the same . P3 filed by the petitioners cannot be termed as fabricated no PI to state of affairs that even the learned District counter-affidavit, did not verify the genuineness of EXS.P4 to P11, letters/ It is regrettable and a sorry Collector, before filing the Exs.P1 to 22. P3 and the other correspondence Tahsildars and other revenue records. At least. communications issued by the litigants produced old documents, it is high time, the deponents i.e., from archives before describing when the the government officials, must verify the same the documents as fabricated. The only standpoint from the government officials, this court notices very often, that the record is not available in the the documents filed by the applicant/litigant are forged and office, or fabricated. settlement register filed along with the reply affidavit of extent of Ac.5-20 cents was mentioned as No doubt, in the 23. respondent No.2, R.S.No.19 for an hill poramboke. However, given Exs.P1 ot P3 and the other correspondence, concludes that the petitioners and their predecessors have been in this Court possession and enjoyment of the property since 1961. As stated supra, the petitioners and their predecessors in interest had 1961. The official respondents 24. been in possession of the subject land since interfered with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners could not have without following due process known to law. Government of Andhra Pradesh v. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in Thummala Krishna Rao and another', held that a title dispute can be 25. 1982 2 see 134 SRS.J W.P.No.8940 of 2017 decided by filing a suit before a competent civil court, but not i proceedings. in summary 26. Given the discussion supra, this writ petition is allowed. Respondents possession of Ac.2-50 cents in process of law. No shall not interfere with the petitioners R.S.N0.19/P of Yendada village, without following due costs. No costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- K. TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Secretary, Tourism Department, State of Andhra Pradesh Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur. 2. The District Collector, Visakhapatnam 3. The Director, Andhra Pradesh Tourism Siripuram, Visakhapatnam. 4. Tahsildar, Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal Chinnagadili, Visakhapatnam at Visakhapatnam. 5. Executive Director, Andhra Pradesh Complex Visakhapatnam. 6. District Tourism Officer, Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam. 7. One CC to Sri V. V. Satish, Advocate 8. One CC to Sri C.B. Adarsh Kumar,, 9. One CC to Sri Gurram Rama Chandra lO.TwoCCsto GP for Tourism, 11 .Two CCs to GP for Revenue, 12.Two C.D. Copies at Visakhapatnam. I Department, Vuda Complex, Tourism at Visakhapatnam, Vuda , Vuda Complex, [OPUC] Advocate [OPUC] j Rao, Advocate [OPUC] High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] Cnr HIGH COURT DATED: 16/07/2025 ORDER a 2 I AUG 2025 I ntSec%j^^ WP.No.8940 of 2017 o ALLOWING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS