::1:: APHC010305782025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] TUESDAY,THE FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 15528/2025 Between: 1. G GOWRAMMA, W/O. G.G.ASHOK, AGED 57 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, RIO. D.NO.5-14, THATHIREDDYPALLE VILLAGE, PEDDACHELLARA GUNTA GRAM PANCHAYAT, GANDRAJUPALLI POST, BAIREDDIPALLE MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS AT VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PALAMANERU REVENUE DIVISION, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, GANGAVARAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 5. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, BAIREDDYPALLE POLICE STATION, CHITTOR DISTRICT. 6. L NARAYANAPPA, S/O. L.NARASAPPA, AGED 62 YEARS, RIO. THATHIREDDYPALLE VILLAGE, PEDDACHELLARA GUNTA GRAM PANCHAYAT, GANDRAJUPALLI POST, BAIREDDIPALLE MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT 7. L KRISHNAPPA, S/O. L.NARASAPPA, AGED 54 YEARS, THATHIREDDYPALLE VILLAGE, PEDDACHELLARA GUNTA GRAM PANCHAYAT, GANDRAJUPALLI POST, BAIREDDIPALLE MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 8. L SANKARAPPA, S/O. L.NARASAPPA, AGED 47 YEARS, THATHIREDDYPALLE VILLAGE, PEDDACHELLARA GUNTA GRAM PANCHAYAT, GANDRAJUPALLI POST, 2 BAIREDDIPALLE MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 9. L CHANDRASEKHAR, S/O. L.NARASAPPA, AGED 36 YEARS, THATHIREDDYPALLE VILLAGE, PEDDACHELLARA GUNTA GRAM PANCHAYAT, GANDRAJUPALLI POST, BAIREDDIPALLE MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): This Court made the following ORDER:- 1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of Respondent No.4 in issuing the proceedings vide Roc.No.A1/276/2023 dt.29.04.2025 as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of Article 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, Consequently set aside the same by directing the respondent No.5 to provide police aid and protection to the petitioner and to pass such” 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was granted a DKT patta in the year 2006, and since then, the petitioner has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the subject property. The petitioner’s name was also mutated in the revenue records, including the Adangals/Pahani and Form-1B, and a Pattadar Passbook was issued in favour of the petitioner. While so, 3 the unofficial respondent Nos. 6 to 9 are trying to interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property. Consequently, the petitioner instituted O.S. No. 7 of 2022 before the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Palamaner, Chittoor District, seeking a permanent injunction in respect of the subject property. The trial court was pleased to pass a judgment and decree in favour of the petitioner, restraining the unofficial respondents from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property. However, despite the grant of a permanent injunction by the trial court, the unofficial respondent Nos. 6 to 9 continued to interfere with the petitioner’s possession. Due to such continued interference, both the petitioner and the unofficial respondents lodged complaints vice versa, which were registered as Crime FIR Nos. 130 of 2024 and 131 of 2024, before the Baireddipalli Police Station, Chittoor District, dated 27.10.2024. In view of the above circumstances, the respondent authorities proceeded to cancel the DKT patta granted to the petitioner without following the due procedure as contemplated under law and without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The 4th respondent issued the impugned proceedings dated 29.04.2025, addressed to the 2nd respondent, stating that the DKT patta which was granted under a mistake of fact and 4 recommended cancellation of the assignment patta issued in favour of the petitioner under the grounds of mistake of fact, invoking BSO 15(18) read with G.O.Ms. No. 912, Revenue Assignment-I Department, dated 12.08.1985. He further submits that, in terms of the Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977, the action of the 4th respondent is contrary to law, and therefore, the impugned proceedings issued by the 4th respondent dated 29.04.2025, are liable to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents furnished written instructions dated 23.06.2025 issued by the 4th respondent, wherein it is stated as follows:- “Meanwhile, after 20 years, the original assignee ancestors pertaining to land in Sy.No.174/6 were present and took the possession of the land forcefully from the writ petitioner. Such in the case, the land in question was in enjoyment of the respondent Nos. 6 to 9. As, the matter stood so on, the present writ petitioner has approached the Hon'ble Junior Civil Judge Court, Palamaner and granted permanent injunction in favour of writ petitioner and against the respondents No. 6 to 9, their men, and agents, restraining them from interfering with there peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit lands. Meanwhile despite of the orders passed in the aforementioned 5 suit, the respondents 6 to 9 have continued to interfere in the suit lands and there were quarrelling by the writ petitioner family and respondents No. 6 to 9 and later an FIR was filed vide No. 130 of 2024 u/s 115(2), 351(2) read with 3(5) of the BNS Act and section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (prevention of atrocities) Act by the respondents No. 6 to 9 and subsequently another FIR No. 131 of 2024 u/s 126(2), 351(2) read with 3(5) of the BNS Act by the present writ petitioner. However, as per the latest field verification conducted by myself along with Village Revenue Officer and Village Surveyor and found that the entire land is fallow. The Villagers have stated that due to quarrel between writ petitioner and respondents 6 to 9 the land is fallow. 1. As per the norms under BSO 15(18) read with G.O.Ms.No.912 Revenue (Assignment-1) Department, dated 12.08.1985, "enjoyment is the determining factor for retention of assigned lands." 2. Accordingly, proposals have been submitted by the then Tahsildar to the District Collector, Chittoor, through the Revenue Divisional Officer, Palamaner, seeking cancellation of the patta to the extent not under her enjoyment, treating the assignment as having been granted under a "mistake of fact." 5. The learned Assistant Government Pleader further submits that while admitting that a D-K-T patta which was granted in favour of the petitioner, the same was issued under a mistake of fact. It is submitted that, although the patta was issued in favour of the 6 petitioner, respondents Nos. 6 to 9 are actually in possession of the subject property. One of the criteria for granting a D-K-T patta over government land is the actual possession and cultivation of the land by the beneficiary. In the present case, since it appears that the unofficial respondents are in possession of the subject property, the criterion for granting patta seems to have been deviated from. 6. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, and on perusal of the material placed on record, it appears that the petitioner was granted D-K-T patta in the year 2006, after following the due procedure as contemplated under the Act. It is further observed that the petitioner’s name was mutated in the revenue records and Pattadar Passbook and Title Deed were issued in her favour. 7. As contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, when the respondents are interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property, the petitioner initiated civil proceedings. The competent civil court decreed the matter in favour of the petitioner, declaring her as the pattadar and lawful possessor of the subject property. Once such a decree has been passed by the 7 civil court, the respondent authorities cannot ignore or deviate from the findings of the court. Hence, the contention of the petitioner is valid and sustainable. 8. As contended by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, the claim that the petitioner is not in possession of the subject property cannot be a valid ground for denying the patta, especially when the criterion for holding the patta is continuous possession and cultivation of the subject land. The respondents' failure to adhere to this criterion is contrary to the findings of the court below. 9. The other contention of the respondents that the patta was issued under a mistake of fact ought to have been determined in accordance with the procedure under the Act and the Assignment Rules, which was not followed in this case. 10. In view of the reasons stated above, the impugned proceedings issued by the 4th respondent dated 29.04.2025, without conducting a due enquiry and without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, and based merely on a report submitted to the RDO for cancellation of patta, is contrary to the principles of natural justice and due process of law. It is a well-settled proposition of law that once a benefit has been conferred upon an individual in 8 furtherance of a social welfare measure of the State, such benefit cannot be withdrawn arbitrarily or without adhering to the principles of natural justice. 11. Therefore, the impugned proceedings issued by the 4th respondent dated 29.04.2025 is hereby set aside. However, the respondents are at liberty to proceed afresh, strictly in accordance with law, by adhering to the principles of natural justice and affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before passing any orders. 12. With the above observation, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications if any pending, shall stand closed. _____________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA 01.07.2025 klk 9 229 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENAKTESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO.15528 of 2025 01.07.2025 klk