APHC010329012014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3206] THURSDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 13168/2014 Between: 1. BATTULA NARAYANA REDDY, S/O LATE VEERA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCC: RETIRED EMPLOYEE, R/O TANGIRALAPALLI, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT FLAT NO. 501, JYOTHI SOWBHAGYA APARTMENTS, SHANTHINAGAR COLONY, MASAB TANK, HYDERABAD-18. 2. ASMA BEGUM, W/O S.A.RAHMAN SAHEB, AGED 55 YEARS, OCC: LIC EMPLOYEE, RIO H.NO. 31-15-8, DHANA LAKSHMI GRAND APARTMENTS, KATOORIVARI VEEDHI, MACHAVARAM DOWN, VIJAYAWADA-4, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 3. BATTULA LAXMI REDDY, S/O LATE VEERA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCC: CONTRACTOR, R/O BELLARI, KARNATAKA STATE, C/O BATTULA NARAYANA REDDY, S/O LATE VEERA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCC : RETIRED EMPLOYEE, R/O TANGIRALAPALLI, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT FLAT NO. 501, JYOTHI SOWBHAGYA APARTMENTS, SHANTHINAGAR COLONY, MASAB TANK, HYDERABAD-18. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, HYDERABAD. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR PRAKASAM DISTRICT AT ONGOLE, - 3. THE JOINT COLLECTOR AND ADDL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT AT ONGOLE. 2 4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER KANDUKUR PRAKASAM DISTRICT, - 5. THE SETTLEMENT OFFICER ONGOLE PRAKASAM DISTRICT, - 6. THE TAHSILDAR DONAKONDA MANDAL PRAKASAM DISTRICT, - 7. JAGARLAMUDI VENKATESHWARLU, S/O VENKATASUBBAIAH, AGED 67 YEARS, OCC: RETIRED RAILWAY EMPLOYEE, C/O BABAI HOTEL, GANDHINAGAR, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 8. JAGARLAMUDI SATYANARAYANA, S/O VENKATASUBBAIAH, AGED 62 YEARS, OCC: RETIRED EMPLOYEE, R/O H.NO. 11-15-12, NEAR OLD POST OFFICE, RAMIREDDYPET, NARASARAOPET, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 9. PURUSHOTHAM SATYANANDAM, S/O PEDDA HANUMANTHARAO, AGED 50 YEARS, R/O NARASIMHANAYUNIPALEM, DONAKONDA MANDAL, PRAKASAM 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 toto issue any appropriate Writ, Order or direction more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the order passed by the Respondent No.3 in D.Dis/(D2)8919/1997 dated 1-3-2010 invoking suo motu powers under Section 9 of the AP Record of Rights in Land and Pattedar Pass Books Act 1971 R/w Rule 22 of the AP Record of Rights in Land and Pattedar Pass Books Rules, 1989 after lapse of 30 years and passing the impugned order after lapse of 12 years from the year of initiation of suo moto enquiry and quashing the entries made in Revenue records in respect of the lands in Sy.No. 152/2 extent 7-88 cents Ac.6-00 and Ac. 12-75 cents respectively situated at Narasimhanayunipalem village, Donakonda Mandal, Prakasam District and directing the Respondent No.6 to summon the Pattadar Pass books and Title deeds issued in favour of vendors of the petitioners in respect of the above mentioned land apart from issuing other directions against their interest as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice, contrary to law and provisions of AP Record of Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act 1971 and the Rules made there under and also Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estate (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 apart from contrary to the well settled principles of law laid down by this Hon'ble Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court and set aside the same and pass. IA NO: 1 OF 2014(WPMP 16499 OF 2014 3 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 passed by the Respondent No.3 in D.Dis/(D2)8919/1997 dated 1-3-2010 pending rlisposal of the above Writ Petition and pass. IA NO: 2 OF 2014(WPMP 23288 OF 2014 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 pass orders for substitution of the paragraph 11 with the new paragraph mentioned in the affidavit and substitution of extent of the lands in paragraph 3 and main prayer as i.e. Ac.38-23, Ac. 9-88 and Ac. 14-27 respectively IA NO: 1 OF 2019 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 dispense with filing of no objection endorsed vakalat of petitioners Learned Advocate Sri V. kiran Rao and receive the present Vakalat of their Learned Advocate M/s. Nimmagadda Revathi, in the main writ petition as counsel for petitioners, in the interests of justice and pass IA NO: 1 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 pleased to receive the Reply copies on record by allowing the leave petition in the above writ petition and pass IA NO: 1 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 may be pleased to permit the petitioners to file hereto annexed documents as additional documents in WP No. 13168 of 2014 in the interest of justice and pas Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. RAJA REDDY KONETI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL (AP) 4 The Court made the following Order: Heard Sri Raja Reddy Koneti, learned counsel for the petitioners and there is no appearance on behalf of the respondents. 2. The petitioners herein had purchased Ac.7.88 cents, Ac.6.00 cents and Ac.12.75 cents of land, in Sy.No.152/2 of Narasimhanayunipalem Village, Donakonda Mandal, Prakasam District and the necessary entries had been made in the Revenue records and the pattadar passbooks were also issued in their favour. 3. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent had issued proceedings, dated 01.03.2010, in D.Dis/(D2)8919/1997, invoking suo-motu powers, under Section-9 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 [for short “the ROR Act, 1971”], setting aside the entries in the revenue records and cancelling the pattadar passbooks and title deeds given to the petitioners. 4. Aggrieved by this Order, the petitioners have approached this Court by way of this Writ Petition. 5. Sri Raja Reddy Koneti, learned counsel for the petitioners would draw the attention of this Court to the Judgment of this Court dated 21.02.2025, in W.A.No.1079 of 2023. In this case, similarly situated persons who had purchased approximately Ac.175.41 cents of land, in Sy.No.152/2 of Narasimhanayunipalem Village, Donakonda Mandal, Prakasam District, had approached this Court, contending that the power under Section-9 of the ROR Act, 1997, could not have been invoked after a period of forty years. Apart from this, the petitioners, in that case also contended that Section-12 of the ROR Act, 1971 stipulated that the provisions of the ROR Act, 1971 would not apply to government land and consequently, the revisional power should not have been invoked. The petitioners therein also raised a third ground that the order of revision, which was based on the ground that the claims of the Shrotriumdars over the entire extent of Ac.300 cents of land, in Sy.No.152/2 5 had been set aside, was incorrect as the claims were rejected only for about 17 to 18 acres. 6. This Court, following the earlier Judgment of the erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh, in the case of Prathap Jungle Resorts Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad & Anrs Vs. Joint Collector, Hyderabad & An,1, in the Judgment of the Division Bench, dated 28.11.2013, in W.A.No.1103 of 2008, had held that exercise of revisional powers after a period of forty years is unsustainable. 7. In the present case, the revision had been taken up after a period of thirty years. 8. Following the aforesaid Judgment of this Court, in W.A.No.1079 of 2023, this Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the proceeding issued by the 3rd respondent dated 01.03.2010, in D.Dis.(D2)8919/1997. It may also be recorded that the revisional authority did not have any jurisdiction to invoke under Section-9 of the ROR Act, 1971. 9. However, this would not preclude the authorities from invoking such provisions of law as are permissible against the petitioners. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J. BSM 1 (2009) 1 ALD 401 6 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO Writ Petition No.13168 of 2014 14-08-2025 BSM