IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO^ AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT APPEAL NO: 895 OF 2024 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 22.12.2023 in W.P.No.20777 of 2021 on the file of the High Court. Between: 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department Secretariat, Amaravathi, Guntur District. The District Collector, Machilipatnam Krishna District-521001 The Tahsildar, Ghantasala Mandal Krishna District- 521133 2. 3. ...Appellants/ Respondents No. 1 to 3 in W.P No. 20777/2021 AND Maddala Prabhakar Rao, S/o. Raghava Rao, Yendakuduru Village, Gantasala Mandalam, Krishna District. ...Respondent/ Writ Petitioner in W.P No. 20777 of 2021 lA NO: 3 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 to suspend the judgment passed in W.P.No.20777^Df 2021, Dated 22.12.^3, pending consideration of Writ Appeal. Counsel for the Appellant: GP FOR ASSIGNMENT Counsel for the Respondents: SRI V V SATISH The Court made the following order: APHC010216312024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3508] TUESDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT APPEAL NO: 895/2024 Between: The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...APPELLANT(S) AND Maddala Prabhakar Rao Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1.GP FOR ASSIGNMENT (AP) Counsel for the Respondent: 1.VV SATISH ...RESPONDENT The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice R Raghunandan Rao) The respondent, had retired from the Indian army on 01.09.1987. Initially, the Tahsildar had granted lease of Ac.l.SOcents in Sy.No.195/6 and Ac.0.97cents in Sy.No.195/7 of Yandakuduru Village, Gantasala Mandal, Krishna District., on an annual basis to the respondent. Subsequently, the respondent filed an application dated 18.08-.1997, to the Zilla Sainik Welfare Officer, seeking assignment of this land. Thereupon, Zilla Sainik Welfare Officer, addressed a letter 2 dated 22.08.1997 for grant of patta of this land to the respondent as he was an Ex-Serviceman. After enquiry, the Tahsildar had issued a D-Form Patta with respect to the aforesaid land, in the year 1997. Thereafter, the respondent remained in possession of the land and continued to cultivate the land. The respondent, on 16.03.2015, addressed a letter to the On the basis of this 2. Tahsildar for permission to sell the land, representation which was forwarded by the Tahsildar, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Machilipatnam, Kurnool District., by the proceedings dated 21.11.2015, confirmed the details of the assignment in favour of the respondent. After this, the Tahsildar sent a letter to the District 09.07.2019, recommending the grant of no objection certificate to the respondent to alienate the subject land. There were Collector, on the Chief Commissioner Land before further proceedings However, it may be Administration, which need not detain this Court. District Collector, addressed a letter, dated mentioned that the 21.09.2022, to the Chief Commissioner Land Administration, stating record to show that the assignment was made in that there is no of the respondent, during the period 1996-1999 assignment committee meeting was held in the year 1997. as no favour 3 3. This proceedings of the District Coiiector dated 21.09.2022 chaiienged by the respondent before this Court by way of W.P No.20777 of 2023. was 4. The case of the appeiiants' before the iearned Singie Judge that the patta couid not have been issued to the respondent in as much as the assignment committee had not heid any meeting in the year 1997, when the D-Form Patta is said to have been issued. This objection of the appeiiant was rejected by the iearned Singie Judge the ground that there was sufficient communication between the Ziiia Sainik Welfare Officer and the revenue department to demonstrate that an application was made and considered favourably by the revenue authorities. was, on 5. On the basis of the said finding, the learned Single Judge allowed Writ Petition No.20777 of 2021, setting aside the proceedings of the 2"^ respondent, dated 21.09.2020, along with a direction to delete the subject land from the prohibited list as more than ten years have elapsed from the date of grant of patta. 6. Aggrieved by this said judgment, the appellant has moved the present writ petition contending that the learned Single Judge could not have rejected their objection as to the issuance of the D-Form Patta itself. 4 Having gone through the material placed before this Court as 7. well as the order of the learned Single Judge, we are of the opinion that the record discloses the making of an application by the respondent through the Zilla Sainik Welfare Officer in the year 1997 itself and that the respondent was in possession of this land even prior to that. In such circumstances, we do not find any reason to doubt the 8. In any event, the said D-Form genuineness of the D-Form Patta. Patta, which has been issued more than 27 years ago, cannot be disputed at this late stage, merely, on the ground that the proceedings had not been conducted in a regular fashion. Accordingly, this writ appeal is dismissed. Time granted for 9. deletion of the property from the prohibitory list by the learned Single Judge is extended by a further period of one (1) month, from today. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all pending aoDlications shall stand closed. Sd/- M.RAWIESH BABU- DEPUTY REGISTER //TRUE COPY// OFFICER SE To 1. One CC to Sri. V V Satish Advocate [OPUC] 2. Two CCs to GP for Assignment, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 3. Three CD Copies GSC HIGH COURT DATED:07/01/2025 ORDER WA.No.895 of 2024 » 2 8 IAN 2025 m Cf> . Current becuon , ^ DISMISSING OF THE WA WITHOUT COSTS