APHC010329942025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 17726/2025 Between: 1. P.BIKSHA RAO, S/O RUBEN, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS. OCCUPATION- APSRTC DRIVER, RESIDENT OF MANDADAM VILLAGE, THULLUR MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, CAPITAL REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (CRDA), VIJAYAWADA, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, THULLUR MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...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 any other appropriate Write order or DIRECTION, directing Respondents 2 to 3 to maintain the disputed land in S- No. 542/1, Mandadam Village, in the Dispute List and take back allotted returnable plots under CRDA until disposal of O.S.No.309/2018 pending before the Hon’ble Mangalari Court. Direct the Respondents to consider the petitioners reprsentation dated 17.04.2025 in accordance with law and pass 2 such other order or orders as bad, illegal, arbitrary, unjust ,improper contrary to law violation of Article 226 of Constitution of India 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 pending disposal of the Writ Petition, to direct the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 17.04.2025 and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SHAIK SARDAM HUSSAIN Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following ORDER: Heard Sri Shaik Sardam Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Divya Teja, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, appearing for respondents 1 to 3. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the absolute owner of the land to an extent of Ac.1-00 cents in Sy.No.542/1 situated at Madandam Village, Thullur Mandal, Guntur District, and it is the petitioner’s ancestral property. A DKT Patta was granted to the petitioner’s grandfather in the year 1938. The property was leased out in the year 2014 to third parties. The lessee, colluding with the revenue officials, got the entries changed in the revenue records. The petitioner has filed suit O.S.No.309 of 2018 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri, for declaration of title. The petitioner made a representation dated 17.04.2025 (Ex.P.5) to keep the 3 property in dispute register. Since the representation (Ex.P.5) is not disposed of, the above writ petition has been filed. 3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader would submit that the issue involved is squarely covered by the order of the Division Bench of this Court passed in W.A.No.817 of 2024, dated 21.03.2025. 4. As seen from the averments in the writ affidavit and the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner filed suit O.S.No.309 of 2018 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri, and the same is pending adjudication. Keeping the property in dispute register in the said circumstances is impermissible. In fact, the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.817 of 2024 considered a similar issue and at Para Nos.15 and 16, it was held as under: “15. The guidelines issued by the Chief Commissioner of land administration do not trace their power to any statutory provision of law. In such circumstances the only provision that can be applied would be Rule32 of the ROR Rules, which requires the details of suits filed under Section 8 (2) of the ROR Act to be included, in a register maintained for this purpose. This would mean that the above guidelines, would not apply to suits which fall outside the provisions of Section 8(2) of the ROR Act. In the present case, the suit in question is a suit for partition and does not, in any manner, falls under the provisions of Section 8(2) of the ROR Act. Consequently, there would be no question of including the land, which is sought to be partitioned, in the dispute register. 16. In that view of the matter, the guidelines of the Chief Commissioner, Land Administration cannot result in all kinds of suits being entered into the dispute register maintained under Rule 32 of the ROR Rules.” 5. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find any merit in the above writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 4 6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date: 15.07.2025 KAS