APHC010231672025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3458] WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 11871/2025 Between: 1. P VENKATA NAIDU, S/O PEDDA LINGANNA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, KUCHIVARIPALLI VILLAGE, YELLANUR MANDAL, ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT. 2. . P. MADANA MOHAN NAIDU, , S/O P. VENKATA NAIDU, 21 YEARS, KUCHIVARIPALLI VILLAGE, YELLANUR MANDAL, ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ANANTHAPURAMU, ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT. 3. THE JOINT COLLECTOR, ANANTHAPURAMU, ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT. 4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ANANTHAPURAMU, ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT. 5. THE TAHSILDAR, YELLANUR MANDAL, ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT. 6. K MALLIKARJUNA NAIDU, S/O LATE ROSHAPPA, AGED 49 YEARS, VASAPURAMU VILLAGE, YELLANUR MANDAL, ANANTHAPURAMU 2 DISTRICT. 7. K PRAMELAMMA, W/O LATE KRISHNAM NAIDU, AGED 48 YEARS. RESIDING AT VASAPURAIMU VILLAGE, YELLANUR MANDAL, ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT. 8. K CHANDRA SEKHAR NAIDU, S/O THIRUPAL NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS. RESIDING AT VASAPURAMU VILLAGE, YELLANUR MANDAL, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 of Mandamus, or other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of Respondent No.3 in issuing the proceedings vide RC. No. 2417/2022/Co-ordn. ROR, dated 08-04-2025 in the revision petition filed by the petitioners against the orders passed by the Respondent No.4 in D. Dis No. D2(B)/721/2019, dated 18-08-2021 relating to the land with an extent of Ac.2.45 cents situated in Sy. No. 414 of Boppepalli Village, Yellanur Mandal of Ananthapuramu District even though the order passed by the Respondent No.4 in D. Dis No. D2(B)/721/2019, dated 18-08-2021 was set aside by this Honble Court by virtue of its order dated 24-10-2024 passed in WP No. 22639/2021 as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, violation of Principles of Natural Justice and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and contrary to the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbook Act, 1971 and consequently set aside the proceedings issued by the Respondent No.4 in D. Dis No. D2(B)/721/2019, dated 18-08-2021 and pass IA 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 direct the respondents 2 to 5 herein not to make mutations relating to the land in Sy. No. 414 of Boppepalli Village, Yellanur Mandal, Ananthapuramu District pending disposal of the writ petition and pass IA NO: 2 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 to suspend the orders passed by Respondent No.3 in Rc. No. 2417/2022/Co- ordn. ROR dated 08-04-2025 relating to the land in Sy. No. 414 of Boppepalli 3 Village, Yellanur Mandal, Ananthapuramu District, pending disposal of the writ petition and pass IA NO: 3 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 to vacate the interim order dated 7.5.2025 passed in W.P.No. 11871 of 2025, in the interests of justice and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 dated 07.05.2025 in W.P.No.11871 of 2025 and dismiss the writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. ALLU HARI NARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. M VIDYAVATHI The Court made the following Order: Heard Sri Allu Hari Narayana, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and Smt. M. Vidyavathi, learned counsel for the unofficial respondent Nos.6 to 8/caveators. 2. The instant Writ Petition is filed challenging the proceedings of the revisional authority, the 3rd respondent, dated 08.04.2025, on the revision application filed by the unofficial respondents herein against the proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer, dated 18.08.2021. 3. It is contended that the petitioners herein are the absolute owners and possessors of the subject lands. The unofficial respondent Nos.6 to 8 have 4 filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer under the provisions of ROR Act, seeking deletion of the names of the petitioners from the revenue records in respect of land over an extent of Ac.2.45 cents in Sy.No.414 of Boppepalli Village, Yellanur Mandal of Ananthapuram District. The said appeal was allowed directing the respondent No.5 to delete the extent of Ac.2.45 cents in Sy.No.414 standing in the name of the writ petitioners. Against the said order the petitioners herein filed a revision petition and also approached this Court by way of writ petition in W.P.No.22639 of 2021. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that against the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, dated 18.08.2021, the petitioners have filed Revision Petition before respondent No.3. Apart from filing of Revision Petition before the Joint Collector, simultaneously a Writ Petition was also filed challenging the very same proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer in W.P.No.22639 of 2021. In the said Writ Petition, this Court has set-aside the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, dated 18.08.2021. It is contended that, although the Revision Petition was pending before the Joint Collector as on the date of the order passed in the said Writ Petition, since the said Revision Petition was not taken up for consideration by the Joint Collector and was also not numbered, this Court observed that the same could not be taken into consideration to hold that the Writ Petition was not maintainable. Accordingly, the said Writ Petition was disposed of by setting aside the impugned order, while granting liberty to the unofficial respondents to approach the competent authority by instituting appropriate proceedings, upon 5 which the concerned authority shall adjudicate the issue as expeditiously as possible. 5. Having regard to the same, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that after the set-aside of the proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer, the revision authority should not have taken up the appeal for consideration, and ought to have dismissed the Revision Petition as the order passed under the said revision has already been set aside. 6. Ms. M.Vidyavathi, learned counsel for the Unofficial respondent Nos.6 to 8 would contend that as on the date of the order passed by this Court, the revision petition was filed and numbered. Taking into consideration of the same, the Joint Collector has entertained the revision filed by the petitioner. It is argued that the factum of the Revision Petition being numbered and taking up the same on to the file was not placed before the Court, while the said Writ Petition was disposed of. 7. Ms. M.Vidyavathi, learned counsel further submits that the original owner of the land, Sri B.Peddappa, was possessing an extent of Ac.6.05 cents only having purchased the same through a registered sale deed dated 07.01.1919, whereas he had sold an extent of Ac.8.50 cents in favour of one Sri Narappa, the petitioner’s ancestor, over and above the extent that he was possessing. As the vendor of the said Narappa had title only in respect of Ac.6.05 cents, the successors-in interest of the said Narappa cannot claim right over and above the extent that the said B.Peddappa could have 6 transferred. Thus, in respect of the balance extent of Ac.2.45 cents title cannot be conferred on the writ petitioners therefore the Revision authority had rightly passed the orders impugned in the writ petition. It is further argued that the unofficial respondents could not be left remedy less. 8. Considered the submissions. As on the date of consideration of the Revision Petition filed by the petitioner, the proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer were set-aside by this Court vide order dated 24.10.2024 in W.P.No.22639 of 2021. 9. Having regard to the same, the Joint Collector ought not to have entertained the said Revision Petition, in the light of the order passed by this Court in the writ petition. However, the Joint Collector to assumed jurisdiction, on the spacious ground, that by the date of the order passed by this Court, the revision petition was numbered and on 08.08.2022 was taken on file and was also admitted on the said date. Taking that date into consideration, the Joint Collector assumed jurisdiction to entertain the revision petition which is illegal and he could not have taken up the said revision for consideration. If he had come across any such facts, which, he, thinks were not placed before the Court at the time of disposal of the writ petition, the Joint Collector could have taken appropriate steps for any clarification/rectification of the order passed in the writ petition, if the circumstance so warranted. Without resorting to any of such measures, the Joint Collector exercised revisionary jurisdiction over an order which was not in existence and was not in operation, at the relevant point of time, being set-aside by this Court. The said action of the Joint 7 collector is not only illegal but also amounts to abuse of process of law; consequently, the said proceedings are unsustainable, and the same are set aside. 10. It has been observed by this Court in the earlier round of litigation while disposing of the Writ Petition in W.P.No.22639 of 2021, that the unofficial respondents are not precluded from availing the remedies available to them under law before appropriate forum. 11. In view of the foregoing, the impugned proceeding of the Joint Collector, dated 08.04.2025 are set-aside and the unofficial respondents are at liberty to approach appropriate authority for redressal of their grievance in accordance with law. 12. With the above observation, the Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed. ______________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA Dated: 06-05-2026 MSI 8 182 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 11871/2025 Dated: 06-05-2026 MSI