# IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVA FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE -- PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RACU AND THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAP^ lA NO: 1 OF 2023 ^ IN WRIT APPEAL NO: 520 OF 2023 lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Between: Papineni Gangadhara Rao, S/o. late Venkateswarlu, Aged 48 years R/o. Parasa Village, Pedakurapadu Mandal, Palnadu District. ...Appellant^ AND 1. Dasari Gnana Prakasam, S/o.Kotaiah, Aged about 65 years, R/o. Lam Village, Tadikonda Mandal, Guntur, District. 2. The state of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its principal secretary Revenue Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi Amaravati, Guntur District. 3. The District Collector, Guntur District, Guntur, Presently Narasaraopet Palnadu District. 4. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Guntur District, Guntur, Presently Narasaraopet, Palnadu District. 5. The Tahasilda, Pedakurapadu Mandal, Guntur District, Presently Palnadu District. 6. Kolnati Sreenivasa Rao, S/o. Aged about 56 years, R/o. H.No. 5-29- 3/21/2, Devapuram, 5'^ Lane, Guntur. 7. Kolnati Venkata Lokesh, S/o. Kolnaki Sreenivasa Rao, Aged about 17 yerars, student, R/o.H.No. 5-29-3/21/2, Devapuram, 5'^ Lane, Guntur, being minor represented by his father Kolnati Srinivasa Rao (5 Respondent) th 8. Kolani Siva Ganesh, S/o. Kolnaki Sreenivasa Rao, Aged about 24 yerars. Pvt Employee, R/o. H.No. 5-29-3/21/2, Devapuram 5'^ Lane Guntur. ...Respondents^ 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 grant leave to the petitioner for filing this appeal against the order dated 16-03- 2023 passed in W.P.No.7409 of 2019. WRIT APPEAL NO: 520 OF 2023 Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the order dated 16-03-^023 in W.P.No.7409^f 2019 on the file of the High Court..^ lA NO: 3 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 to suspend the order of the Learned Single Judge dated 16-03- 2023 passed in W.P.No.7409 of 2019 pending disposal of leave petition well as Writ Appeal. ^ as Counsel for the Appellants: SRI VENKATA SUBBAIAH POGULA Counsel for the Respondents: SRI K.V. SATYA RAMACHANDRA RAO- Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondents: SRI K. JOSEPH ^ The Court made the following order: r APHC010228332023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3493] F-rS ■JJ-V FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA I.A.No.j of 2023 IN/AND WRIT APPEAL NO: 520/2023 Between: ...APPELLANT Papineni Gangadhara Rao AND ...RESPONDENT(S) Dasari Gnana Prakasam and Others Counsel for the Appellant: 1.VENKATA SUBBAIAH POGULA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR REVENUE 2.K.V. SATYA RAMACHANDRA RAO 3.K JOSEPH The Court made the following Judgment: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R Raghunandan Rao) One Smt. S. Alivelamma was the owner of Ac.70.00 of land in Parasa, Balusupadu and Kambhampadu villages of Guntur District. The said land is 2 RRR, J & Dr. VJP, J W.A.No.520 of 2023 said to have devolved on one Smt. Sai Kumari, by virtue of a registered will executed by Smt. S. Alivelamma. After the advent of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (here-in-after referred to as “the Act), Smt. 2. Alivelammawas required to file a declaration, as to the extent of the land owned and possessed by her and the nature of the land. However, no such declaration is said to have been filed. Thereafter, some of the villagers in the area had approached this Court, by way of W.P.No.19268 of 2009 as well as W.P.No.22180 of 2010, contending that the Revenue Authorities, despite being informed, that Smt. Alivelamma had not filed a declaration and was in possession of the land which was in excess of her entitlement under the Act, had not taken any steps to take up the case of Smt. Alivelamma, under the Act. One of the persons, who is said to have raised such an issue, by 3. virtue of representations, to the Revenue Authorities, is the appellant in the present case. The Revenue Authorities, in view of the directions given by this 4. Court, at various stages, in the above Writ Petitions, had initiated proceedings under the Act, for ascertaining the extent of land held by Smt. Alivelamma and to determine whether she was holding any excess land. The Land Reforms Tribunal and the Revenue Divisional Officer, Guntur, by proceedings in / 3 ( RRR, J & Dr. VJP, J W.A.No.520of2023 RC.No.1661/2009/SDT, dated 16.07.2012, had declared that Smt. Sai Kumari, who was the legal heir of Smt. Alivelamma, who had passed away by then, would have to surrender the excess land equal to 1.1431 Standard Holding. A notice, under Form VI, dated 16.02.2015, was also issued to Smt. Sai Kumari. It appears that Smt. Sai Kumari had passed away on 16.03.2015 and a fresh issued to the husband and the legal notice, under Form VI, was representatives of the deceased Smt. Sai Kumari. Despite service of this notice, the husband and the legal heirs of Smt. Sai Kumari did not surrender any part of the land. 5. It appears that Smt. Sai Kumari, during her life time, and her husband and legal heirs, according to the appellant, had sold away bits and pieces of land out of the aforesaid Ac.70.00 of land. 6. The 1®* respondent herein had purchased Ac.7.68 cents of land in Sy.No.215 of Tyallur village and Ac.5.71 cents of land in Sy.No.48/1B of Balusupadu village, by way of registered deed of sale. Thereafter, the 1®‘ respondent was also given pattadar passbook and title deeds and the said land was mutated in the name of the 1®‘ respondent, in the Revenue Records. The Revenue Authorities, after having issued the pattadar passbook and title deeds in favour of the 1®* respondent, deleted the name of respondent, from the Revenue Records, in the pattadar passbook column, without any notice to the 1®‘ respondent. Aggrieved by the said 7. the 1 4 RRR, J & Dr. VJP, J W.A.No.520 of 2023 deletion, the 1®' respondent approached this Court, by way of W.P.No.7409 of 2019. The contention of the 1®' respondent, in the Writ Petition, is that he had purchased the property, by way of a registered deed of sale, from the original owner of the land and the Revenue Authorities, after verifying the land records and the facts, had accepted the said sale transaction. The learned counsel for the respondent would also draw the attention of this Court to the communication of the Revenue Divisional Officer RC.No.139/09-SDT (LR), dated 30.01.2009, wherein the Revenue Divisional Officer, after tracing the title of the land, from Smt. Alivelamma to Smt. K. Sai Kumari, had recorded that the land in question is a patta land and that there was no ceiling case against either Smt. Alivelamma or Smt. K. Sai Kumari. The learned counsel for the I^Vespondent would also draw the attention of this Court to the legal opinion obtained from the Government Pleader, dated 01.12.2014, in which the learned Government Pleader had opined that the Revenue Authorities could not interfere with the rights of the 1®' respondent over the said land, in as much as the Revenue Authorities had already issued pattadar passbooks and had made necessary entries in the Revenue Records, as Adangal and Village Accounts. The learned Government Pleader took the view that, having issued such documents and records, it would not be open for the Government to go back all these records. 8. Guntur, vide V 5 RRR, J & Dr. VJP, J W.A.No.520of2023 A learned Single Judge of this Court, by an order, dated 16.03.2023, had allowed this Writ Petition, after noticing that the purchaseof 9. respondent, was done even while the land ceiling the land, by the 1 proceedings were going on. The learned single judge had held that the purchase of the land by the respondent is a valid transaction and that the 1®' respondent had come into possession of these lands, by virtue of such a transaction. On the basis of this finding, the learned Single Judge held that the 1®* respondent was entitled for inclusion of his name in the Revenue Records and directed the Tahsildar of the Mandal to incorporate the name of the 1®* respondent in the Adangal and Pahani, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the order. The learned counsel for the 1®' respondent submits that the necessary changes have also been carried out and the name of the 1®* respondent has now been included in the Revenue Records. Aggrieved by this Judgment of the learned Single Judge, the appellant, who is a third party to the Writ Petition, has filed the present Writ Appeal, along with an application for leave to file the said Writ Appeal. 10. 11. Sri G. Peddababu, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri Venkata Subbaiah Pogula, learned counsel for the appellant, would submit that the purchase of the said land, by the 1®' respondent, is not valid in view of the prohibition contained under the Act. He would submit that, no sale of agricultural land could have been done, without prior approval of the parties, till a finding is given as to the land held by the land holder and that he is not 6 RRR, J & Dr. VJP, J W.A.No.520 of 2023 holding land in excess of the Standard Holding, permissible for such a land holder. He would submit that the sale or alienation of any land, pending such judgment, is a fraud and no title would flow to any person in whose favour such an alienation is done. 12. Sri K.V. Satya Ramachandra Rao, learned counsel for the 1 St respondent would submit that the appellant is a third party who has no locus to file the present Writ Appeal. The learned counsel, relying upon a Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of V.N. Krishna Murthy vs. Ravikumar\ would contend that only a person who has suffered a legal injury, on account of an order, can seek to file an appeal. He would submit that the appellant does not suffer any such legal injury and consequently, the appeal is not maintainable. He would contend that this Court ought not to grant leave to the appellant. The learned counsel for the 1®* respondent would also contend 13. that the family of his vendor had sold away a large part of the aforesaid Ac.70.00 of land and no steps have been taken against any of the purchasers on either the appellant or any other person. However, the 1®’ respondent has been targeted on account of the fact that he hails from an under-privileged community. The learned counsel would also submit that the manner in which the present appeal has been moved would make it clear that there is an ulterior motive in moving the said Appeal. ^ (2020) 9 see 501 7 ( RRR, J & Dr. VJP, J W.A.No.520of2023 Sri G. Peddababu, learned Senior Counsel, in reply, would submit that the concept of locus standi has expanded over time. He would submit that it is not only a person who has suffered a legal wrong or a legal injury, that can come to file an appeal, but even unconnected persons can approach the Court to set right any declaration or Judgment in rem. He relies upon a Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of A. Subash Babu vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Another^ and in the case of Samir Agrawal Competition Commission of India and Others 14. vs. Sri G. Peddababu, the learned Senior Counsel would also submit that the land ceiling proceedings against Smt. Alivelamma were initiated on the complaint given by the appellant and one Sri Suribabu. He would submit that it is on account of their complaints and for the purposes of the proceedings initiated under the Act that a declaration was given about excess land holding by Smt. Alivelamma. He would submit that the appellant has close nexus to the issue and is entitled to file the appeal as the declaration of the Learned Single Judge that the respondent is the owner of the land, by virtue of a fraudulent transaction, would operate as a declaration in rem. 15. Booz Allen & Hamilton Inc. v. SBI Home Finance Ltd.\ the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while considering the arbitrability of disputes, had 16. In ^(2011) 7 see 616 ^ (2021) 3 see 136 ^ (2011) 5 see 532 ; (2011) 2 See (eiv) 781 2011 See Online Se 636 at page 547 8 RRR, J & Dr. VJP, J W.A.No.520 of 2023 considered the question of judgments in rem and in personam, in the following manner: 37. It may be noticed that the cases referred to above relate to actions in rem. A right in rem is a right exercisable against the world at large, as contrasted from a right in personam which is an interest protected solely against specific individuals. Actions in personam refer to actions determining the rights and interests of the parties themselves in the subject-matter of the case, whereas actions in rem refer to actions determining the title to property and the rights of the parties, not merely among themselves but also against all persons at any time claiming an interest in that property. Correspondingly, a judgment in personam refers to a judgment against a person as distinguished from a judgment against a thing, right or status and a judgment in rem refers to a judgment that determines the status or condition of property which operates directly on the property itself (Vide Black's Law Dictionary.) The Hon’ble Supreme court, after this finding, held that a suit relating to an agreement of sale or sale deed would only be a judgment in personam and not a judgment in rem. In the present case, the declaration, if any, by the Learned Judge was that the transaction between the 1 St respondent and his vendor is a valid transfer. This declaration would at best be a judgment in personam. h- 9 ( RRR, J & Dr. VJP, J W.A.No.520 of 2023 In A. Subash Babu vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Another^ the Hon’ble Supreme Court was considering whether the second wife of a person, accused of Bigamy, under Section 494 of l.P.C. would fall within the meaning of the term “aggrieved person” set out in Section 198 of Cr.P.C.. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that a second wife would fall within the meaning of the term ‘aggrieved person’ on this basis; 17. 18. As far as Section 494 IPC is concerned, the criminality attaches to the act of second marriage either by a husband or by a wife who has a living wife or husband, in a case in which the second marriage is void by reason of its taking place during the life of such husband or wife. When a law, such as Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 declares that a second marriage by a husband, who has a living wife, with another woman is void, for breach of Section 5(i) of the said Act, it brings/attaches several legal disabilities to the woman with whom the second marriage is performed. Say for example, she would not be entitled to claim maintenance from her husband even if she is inhumanly treated, subjected to mental and physical cruelty of variety of kinds, etc. and is not able to maintain herself The law of inheritance would prejudicially operate against her. She herself would suffer outrageous, wrong and absurd social stigma of being another in the life of the male who contracts second marriage woman with her. The members of the cruel society including her kith and kin like parents, brother, sister, etc. would look down her and she would be left in the lurch by one and all. upon ^(2011) > see 616 10 RRR, J & Dr. VJP, J W.A.No.520 of 2023 19. When a court of law declares second marriage to be void on a petition presented by husband who contracts the second marriage on the ground that he has a spouse living at the time of marriage, it only brings untold hardships and miseries in the life of the woman with whom the second marriage is performed apart from shattering her ambition to live a comfortable life after marriage. The Hon’ble Supreme court, in Samir Agrawal vs. Competition Commission of India and Others^, while considering the maintainability of a complaint, and subsequent appeal, filed by an informant, under the provisions of the Competition Act 2002, held as follows; 18. 15. A look at Section 19(1) of the Act would show that the Act originally provided for the “receipt of a complaint’’ from any person, consumer or their association, or trade association. This expression was then substituted with the expression “receipt of any information in such manner and’’ by the 2007 Amendment. This substitution is not without significance. Whereas, a complaint could be filed only from a person who was aggrieved by a particular action, information may be received from any person, obviously whether such person is or is not personally affected. This is for the reason that the proceedings under the Act are proceedings in rem which affect the public interest. That CCI may inquire into any alleged contravention of the provisions of the Act on its own motion, is also laid down in Section 19(1) of the Act. Further, even while ® (2021) 3 sec 136 11 ( RRR, J & Dr. VJP, J W.A.No.520 of 2023 exercising sue motu powers, CCI may receive information from any person and not merely from a person who is aggrieved by the conduct that is alleged to have occurred. This also follows from a reading of Section 35 of the Act, in which the earlier expression “complainant or defendant’’ has been substituted by the expression, enterprise’’, setting out that the informant may appear either in person, or through one or more agents, before CCI to present the information that he has gathered. person or an The issue, before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in A. Subash Babu vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Another^ was whether a second 19. wife, in a bigamous marriage could file a complaint her husband. The Hon’ble Supreme court, after finding that the second wife is also an affected party, in a bigamous marriage, had held that she would be an aggrieved party who can file such a complaint. In Samir Agrawal vs. Competition Commission of 8 the Hon’ble Supreme Court, on the language of the India and Others Competition Act, 2002, had held that the Act itself provides for information to be taken from anywhere and consequently such information could be given by any person, even if he is not affected or aggrieved. This court, in that view of the matter is unable to apply these principles to the case at hand, as the facts are totally different. ^ (2011) 7 ifC 616 ® (2021) 3 see 136 12 RRR, J & Dr. VJP, J W.A.No.520 of 2023 In V.N. Krishna Murthy vs. Ravikumai^, the maintainability of an appeal, under the civil procedure code, by a third party came up for consideration. In this case, persons, as owners of some land, had entered into 20. a registered agreement of sale, in favour of a society, and had also executed a registered power of attorney to it’s office bearers, with the power to sell the said land. These power of attorney holders had executed registered sale deeds in favour of the members of the society. Subsequently, other persons claiming to have interest in the land filed a suit and obtained a declaration that the agreement of sale is barred by Limitation and the society cannot alienate any land. Neither the power of attorney nor the sale deeds executed in favour of the members of the society were challenged. Some of the members, who had obtained sale deeds, sought to appeal against the said judgment of the trial, after obtaining the leave of the court. This leave was refused by the Hon’ble High Court as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in this regard, is as follows; 16. This Court in State of Punjab v. Amar Singh [State of Punjab V. Amar Singh, (1974) 2 SCC 70] while dealing with the maintainability of appeal by a person who is not party to a suit has observed thus: (SCC p. 104, para 83) "83. Firstly, there is a catena of authorities which, following the dictum of Lindley, LJ., Securities Insurance Co., In re [Securities Insurance Co., In re, (1894) 2 Ch 410 (CA)] have laid down the rule that a ® (2020) 9 see 501 13 ( RRR, J & Dr. VJP, J W.A.No.520 of 2023 person who is not a party to a decree or order may with the leave of the Court, prefer an appeal from such decree or order If he is either bound by the order or is aggrieved by it or is prejudicially affected by it. ” (emphasis in original) 17. In Baldev Singh v. Surinder Mohan Sharma [Baldev Singh v. Surinder Mohan Sharma, (2003) 1 SCC 34] , this Court held that an appeal under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, would be maintainable only at the instance of a person aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree. While dealing with the concept of person aggrieved, it was observed in para 15 as under: (SCC pp. 39-40) “15. ...A person aggrieved to file an appeal must be one whose right is affected by reason of the judgment and decree sought to be impugned. ” 18. In A. Subash Babu v. State of A.P. [A. Subash Babu V. State of A.P., (2011) 7 SCC 616 : (2011) 3 SCC (Civ) 851 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 267] this Court held as under: (SCC pp. 628-29, para 25) “25. ... The expression “aggrieved person” denotes an elastic and an elusive concept. It cannot be confined within the bounds of a rigid, exact and comprehensive definition. Its scope and meaning depends on diverse, variable factors such as the content and intent of the statute of which the contravention is alleged, the specific circumstances of the nature and the extent of the the case, - complainant's interest and the nature and the extent of the prejudice or injury suffered by the complainant. 14 RRR, J & Dr. VJP, J W.A.No.520 of 2023 19. The expression “person aggrieved” does not include a person iv/io suffers from a psychological or an imaginary injury; a person aggrieved must, therefore, necessarily be one, whose right or interest has been adversely affected jeopardised (vide Shanti Kumar R. Canji v. Home Insurance Co. of New York [Shanti Kumar R. Canji v. Home Insurance Co. of New York, (1974) 2 SCC 387] and State of Rajasthan v. Union of India [State of Rajasthan v. Union of India, (1977) 3 SCC 592]). 20. In K. Ponnalagu AmmanI v. State of Madras [K. PonnalaguAmmani v. State of Madras, 1952 SCC OnLine Mad 300 : (1953) 66 LW 136] , this Court laid down the test to find out when it would be proper to grant leave to appeal to a person not a party to a proceeding against the decree judgment passed in such proceedings in the following words: (SCC OnLine Mad) “Now, what is the test to find out when it would be proper to grant leave to appeal to a person not a party to a proceeding against the decree or judgment in such proceedings? We think it would be improper to grant leave to appeal to every person who may in some remote or indirect way be prejudicially affected by a decree or judgment. We think that ordinarily leave to appeal should be granted to persons who, though not parties to the proceedings, would be bound by the decree or judgment in that proceeding and who would be precluded from attacking its correctness in other proceedings. ” or or 15 ( RRR, J & Dr. VJP, J W.A.No.520of2023 21. In this case, the appellant does not fall into any of the categories, of affected persons, set out above. No right of the appellant is affected, except an intention to see through the distribution of surplus land of Smt. Alivelamma. Such an intention does not amount to a right which is affected. For these reasons, it must be held that a case for grant of leave has not been made out and the leave petition is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, the present Writ Appeal also stands dismissed. 22. The learned counsel for the 1®‘ respondent also states, across the bar, that despite the orders of the Learned Single Judge, the Revenue Authorities have included the land in the prohibitory list maintained under Section 22-A of the Registration Act and the same is clearly not permissible. This Submission is not relevant, as the remedy for this issue is elsewhere. 23. There shall be no order to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any shall stand closed. ®g'EP%?^Rll';^TRAR ' SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// / To, 1. One CC to Sri Venkata Subbaiah Pogula, Advocate [OPUC]^ 2. One CC to Sri K.V. Satya Ramachandra Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT 4. Two CD Copies RAM HIGH COURT DATED:24/01/2025 ANDfii^ ORDER IA.No.1 of 2023 g 1 0 FEB 20?5 ^ . Current Section ^ m IN WA.No.520 of 2023 DISMISSING THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS