I APHC010218082025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI SMS TUESDAY,THE FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT APPEAL NO: 659 OF 2025 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent to against the order dated 26.03.2025 in W.P.No. 1617 of 2025 on the file of High Court. Between: 1. Doddamreddy Nagireddy, S/o Konda Reddy R/o Appasamudram Village, Udayagiri Mandal District-524 222. Aged about 75 years, S.P.S.R. Nellore 2. Doddamreddy Seetharamamma about 75 years. W/o (Late) Jayaramireddy, Aged R/o D.No.1-17, Appasamudram Village Udayagiri Mandal, S.P.S.R. Nellore District-524 222. 3. Doddamreddy Chandra Reddy,, S/o (Late) Chinna Maalakonda Aged about 57 years, R/o Appasamudram Village S.P.S.R. Nellore District-524 222. 4. Doddamreddy Srinivasulareddy, S/o (Late) Brahmareddy, Aged about 67 years, R/o D.No. 1-19A, Appasamudram Village, Udayagiri Mandal, S.P.S.R. Nellore District-524 222. 5. Doddamreddy Lakshmi Narasareddy, S/o (Late) Maalakondareddy, R/o D.No. 1-20, Appasamudram Village, Udayagiri Mandal, S.P.S.R. Nellore District-524 222. Reddy, Udayagiri Mandal, Aged about 65 years. 6. Doddamreddy Krishnareddy, s/q Maalakondareddy, Aged about 52 Udayagiri Mandal, S.P.S.R. years, R/o Appasamudram Nellore District-524 222. Village, ...appellants/respondents 6 to 11 AND 1. Daggupati Chinna Kodandaiah, S/o. Siva Ramaiah, Aged about 53 years, R/o 00, Appasamudram Village, Udayagiri Mandal, S.P.S.R. Nellore District-524 222. ...1"* RESPONDENT/WRIT PETITIONER 2. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Building District. 3. The District Collector, S.P.S.R. Nellore District, Nellore. 4. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Atmakur, Nellore. 5. The Tahsildar, Udayagiri Mandal, S.P.S.R. Nellore District. 6. The Station House Officer, Appasamudram Police Station Nellore District. Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur S.P.S.R. Nellore District S.P.S.R. ...RESPONDENTS lA NO: 1 OF 209fi Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated m the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the operation of the order No. 1617/2025. Counsel forth© Petitioners: SRI A. SYAM SUNDAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.liSRI AKULA SRI KRISHNA SAI bhargav dt.26-03-2025 passed in W.P. Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 5: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.6: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following; JUDGMENT APHC010218082025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3541] TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRITAPPEAl NO: 659/2025 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent to allow the Writ Appeal by dismissing the W.P.No.1617/2025 and pass Between: 1.DODDAMREDDY NAGIREDDY, S/0 KONDA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, R/0 APPASAMUDRAM VILLAGE, UDAYAGIRI MANDAL, S.P.S.R. NELLORE DISTRICT-524 222. 2.DODDAMREDDY SEETHARAMAMMA,, JAYARAMIREDDY, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS APPASAMUDRAM VILLAGE UDAYAGIRI MANDAL, S.P.S.R. NELLORE DISTRICT-524 222. W/0 (LATE) R/0 D.NO.1-17, 3.DODDAMREDDY CHANDRA REDDY,, S/0 (LATE) CHINNA MAALAKONDA REDDY. AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/0 APPASAMUDRAM VILLAGE, UDAYAGIRI MANDAL, S.P.S.R. NELLORE DISTRICT-524 222. 4.DODDAMREDDY SRINIVASULAREDDY,, BRAHMAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, APPASAMUDRAM VILLAGE, UDAYAGIRI MANDAL, S.P.S.R. NELLORE DISTRICT-524 222. S/0 (LATE) R/0 D.N0.1-19A, 5.DODDAMREDDY LAKSHMI NARASAREDDY, S/0 (LATE) MAALAKONDAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/0 D.NO.1-20, APPASAMUDRAM VILLAGE, UDAYAGIRI MANDAL, S.P.S.R. NELLORE DISTRICT-524 222. 2 RRR, J&JS,J W.A.No.659of2025 6.D0DDAMREDDY KRISHNAREDDY,, s/O MAALAKONDAREDDY, R/0 APPASAMUDRAM VILLAGE, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS UDAYAGIRI MANDAL, S.P.S.R. NELLORE DISTRICT-524 222. ...APPELLANT(S) AND 1.DAGGUPATI CHINNA KODANDAIAH, S/O SIVA RAMAIAH ABOUT 53 YEARS, UDAYAGIRI MANDAL, S.P.S.R. NELLORE DISTRICT-524 222. 2.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, BUILDING, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, NELLORE. 4.THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, NELLORE DISTRICT, NELLORE. 5. THE TAHSILDAR, UDAYAGIRI MANDAL, DISTRICT. 6. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, APPASAMUDRAM STATION, S.P.S.R. NELLORE DISTRICT. AGED R/0 00, APPASAMUDRAM VILLAGE, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT S.P.S.R. NELLORE DISTRICT ATMAKUR, S.P.S.R. S.P.S.R. NELLORE POLICE ...RESPONDENT(S); lA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1 .A SYAM SUNDAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR REVENUE 2. AKULA SRI KRISHNA SAI BHARGAV 3 RRR, J&JS,J W.A.No.659of2025 The Court made the following Judgment: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) The present Writ Appeal arises out of a dispute in relation to Ac.3.59 cents of land in Sy.No.473 of Appasamudram Village, Udayagiri Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. The 1®* respondent herein had filed W.P.No.1617 of 2025 before this Court, contending that the Revenue and the Police Authorities, arrayed as respondents 3 to 6 in the Writ Appeal, were seeking to dispossess the 1®' respondent, at the behest of the appellants herein. The respondent contended that the Revenue Records show his name as the possessor and the owner of the land and that the appellants herein were trying to dispossess him from the said land with the assistance of the Revenue Authorities and the Police Authorities. 2. 3. A learned Single Judge of this Court, in an order, dated 26.03.2025, after perusing the written instructions produced by the learned Government Pleader for Revenue to the effect that the name of the 1®* respondent has been recorded in the revenue records as the owner and possessor of the land and that the Revenue Authorities are not interfering with the possession of the 1®* respondent, had disposed of the Writ Petition, by directing the respondents in the Writ Petition, not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property of the 1®^ respondent, except by due process of law. * ]» RRR, J&JSJ W.A.No.659of2025 4. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants, who were arrayed as respondents 6 to 11 in the Writ Petition, moved the present Writ Appeal. 5. Sri A. Syam Sundar Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the learned Single Judge had given a finding in relation to the ownership over the said land, in favour of the 1®* respondent and that the 1 respondent, taking advantage of this finding, was interfering with the possession of the appellants over the said land. The learned counsel would also contend that the finding of the learned Single Judge that, the 1®' respondent is in settled possession and is in enjoyment of the property, is contrary to the finding of the Civil Court in O.S.No.75 of 2007, dated 30.11.2017, before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kavali O.S.No.114 of 1991, dated 07.03.2000, on the file of learned Junior Civil Judge, Atmakur. The learned counsel would also contend that there material before the learned Single Judge to have arrived at a conclusion that the 1®* respondent is in possession and enjoyment of the land. as well as was no 6. Sri N. Subbarao, learned Senior counsel appearing for Sri Akula Sri Krishna Sai Bhargav, learned counsel for the 1 respondent would contend that the revenue records clearly show the possession and title of the 1®* respondent. He would also contend that the order of the learned Single Judge only directs the Revenue Authorities and the Police Authorities not to interfere, except by due process of law and such an order cannot be treated to 'be Incorrect in any manner. The learned Senior counsel would also draw the 5 RRR, J&JS,J W.A.No.659of2025 attention of this Court to the observations and the findings in the orders of the Civil Court to contend that it is the 1®' respondent who is in possession as the owner of the said land. 7. Sri A. Syam Sundar Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants, argued to the contrary and sought to draw the attention of this Court to the findings in the orders of the Civil Court to contend that it is the appellants, who are the owners of the land and who are in possession of the land. 8. This Court does not propose to go into the question as to who is in possession and who has title to the land. Such an exercise would be beyond the purview of judicial review, exercised by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. However, the fact remains that it is an admitted case on both sides that the land in question is a private land. In the circumstances, any dispute relating to such lands and any relief sought against the actions of any party, in respect of such private lands, would have to be resolved by the Civil Courts and neither the Revenue Authorities nor the Police Authorities can seek to evict any person from such private land, unless such an action is supported by an appropriate Judgment or a decree from the Civil Court. I In the present case, the Judgment, dated 30.11.2017, in O.S.No.75 of 2007, before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kavali, and another Judgment, dated 07.03.2000, in O.S.No.114 of 1991 before the learned Junior 10. 6 • RRR, J&JS,J W.A.No.659 of 2025 Civil Court, Atmakur and the consequential appellate order, dated 22.01.2004 in A.S.No.30 of 2000, before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kavali may be relevant. In such circumstances, it would always be open to either side to rely upon such Judgments and thereby necessary relief can be sought, either by filing Execution Petition or by initiating fresh litigation, as advised to them. 11. However, the question of the finding of the learned Single Judge, of possession and enjoyment of the property by the 1 St respondent, still remains. As this Court has taken the above view, it would only be appropriate to direct that the said finding shall not be taken into litigation that may be initiated by either side. account in any proper 12. Accordingly, the present Writ Appeal is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- M. RAMESH BABU DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ' SECTION OFFICER To, Revenue Department, State of Andhra 1. The Principal Secretary, Pradesh, Secretariat Building, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. The District Collector, S.P.S.R. Nellore District, Nellore. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Atmakur, S.P.S.R. Nellore District, Nellore. 4. The Tahsildar, Udayagiri Mandal, S.P.S.R. Nellore District. 5. The Station House Officer, Appasamudram Police Station, S.P.S.R. Nellore District. r ' vx 6. One CC to Sri A. Syam Sundar Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 7. One CC to Sri Akula Sri Krishna Sai Bhargav, Advocate [OPUC] 8. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 9. Two CCs to GP for Home, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 10. Two CD Copies. ssb HIGH COURT DATED:01/07/2025 JUDGMENT WA No.659 OF 2025 DISPOSING OF THE W.A. WITHOUT COSTS