APHC010331072025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY. THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 16760 OF 2025 Between: 1. D. Himakiran, S/o. Joseph, Aged about 50 years, R/o. 27*^ Ward Neerukonda Dalita Sibiram, Mangalagiri, Guntur District. 2. D. Rajasekhar, S/o. Satyanandam, Aged about 55 years, R/o. 27 Ward, Neerukonda Dalita Sibiram, Mangalagiri, Guntur District. th ...Petitioners AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its PrI. Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur district. 2. The District Collector, Guntur District, Guntur. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Guntur Division, Guntur. 4. The Tahsildar, Mangalagiri Mandal, Guntur District. 5. Andhra Pradesh Capital Region Development Authority APCRDA, Rep. by its Commissioner, Thullur, Guntur District. ...Respondents 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 any writ. order or Direction more particularly one in the Mandamus declaring the action of the 4*^ and 5*'' respondents interfering and trying to dispossess from property to an extent of Ac. 1.72 cents in Sy.No. 343 of Neerukonda Village, Mangalagiri Mandal, nature of writ of . . Guntur district without following due process of law is illegal, arbitrary, unjust, against the principles of natural justice. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 4*'^ and 5 respondents not to dispossess the petitioners from the property to an extent of Ac. 1.72 cents in Sy.No. 343 of Neerukonda Village, Mangalagiri Mandal, Guntur District pending disposal of the above writ petition in the interests of justice. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI G. V. S. MEHAR KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 : GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.5 : Ms. K. JHANSI LAKSHMI Ld AGP REPRESENTING Ms. S PRANATHI, SC FOR APCRDA The Court made the following order: APHC010331072025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3328] WEDNESDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 16760 OF 2025 Between: 1.D HIMAKIRAN, S/0 JOSEPH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/0. 27TH WARD, NEERUKONDA DALITA SIBIRAM, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2.D RAJASEKHAR, S/0 SATYANANDAM, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/0. 27TH WARD, NEERUKONDA DALITA SIBIRAM, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER{S) AND 1.THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRI. SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, GUNTUR DISTRICT, GUNTUR. 3.THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, GUNTUR DIVISION, GUNTUR. 4.THE TAHSILDAR, MANGALAGIRI MANUAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 5. ANDHRA PRADESH CAPITAL REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY APCRDA, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER, THULLUR, DISTRICT. GUNTUR ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1.G VS MEHAR KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR REVENUE 2.S PRANATHI The Court made the following ORAL ORDER: Heard Sri G.V.S. Mehar Kumar, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners and Ms. K. Jhansi Lakshmi, learned Assistant Government Pleader to learned Advocate General’s Office Standing Counsel for Respondent No.5. attached representing Ms. S. Pranathi, learned 2. The Present Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief: “In view of the facts and circumstances stated above, it is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue any writ, order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 4‘^ and 5^^ respondents in interfering and trying to dispossess from property to an extent of Ac. 1.72 cents Sy.No. 343 of Neerukonda Village, Mangalagiri Mandal, Guntur district without following due process of law is illegal, arbitrary, unjust, against the principles of natural justice and pass such other order or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. ’’ The facts as stated in Para-3 of the Affidavit filed in support of Petition would indicate that the great grandfather by name Dodia Neelambaram has acquired the Government property of an extent of Ac. 1.72 cents in Survey No.343 of Neerukonda Village, Mangalagiri Mandal about 100 years ago i.e., in the year 1905. It is further stated that since the date of the alleged acquisition (year 1905) the great grandfather and his have cultivated the said land by raising Tobacco and other commercial in 3. the Writ successors crops. 3 It is also submitted that the ancestors of the Writ Petitioner, including the father had been paying tax to the said property without fail. It is also stated that there is no document in favour of the Writ Petitioner or his ancestors confirming the possession of the property except the Proceedings issued by the Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 in the year 1905 against Sri Dodia Neelambaram, who is the great grandfather of the Writ Petitioner. It is further stated that though, several Representations were made by the Writ Petitioner and his predecessors for mutating the property in the Revenue Records in their favour and for issuance of Pattadar Pass Book or to issue Assignment Patta, were not considered by the Official Respondents even till today. It is stated in Para-5 of the Affidavit that the Official Respondents are interfering with the possession of the Writ Petitioners by digging the subject land for construction of a Reservoir for storing of the waste water which is stagnated in the capital area. To establish the possession, the Writ Petitioner has submitted a Notice which is allegedly issued by the Official Respondents under Section 7 of the Madras Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (Act 3 of 1905) (Ex.P.1). The Writ Petitioner has also filed certain Photographs showing the tomb-stones of the family members of the Writ Petitioner (Ex.P.2). 4. 5. It is noticed by this Court that the alleged Notice issued on 04.12.1953 (Ex.P.1) is a typed copy. On the query made by this Court on the earlier occasion, the Writ Petitioner has filed Memo on 09.07.2025 for placing on record a Photocopy of the purported original Notice issued by the Official Respondents under Section 7 of the Madras Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (Act 3 of 1905). After having perused the same, during the course of hearing on 21.07.2025, this Court had directed the Writ Petitioner to produce the original copy of the document filed along with the Memo dated 10.07.2025. Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioner replied that only Photocopy is available and the original Notice dated 04.12.1953 is not available with the Writ Petitioner. 6. 7. The photocopy of the alleged Notice issued to the grandfather of the Writ Petitioner on 04.12.1953 under Section 7 of the Act 03 of 1905 had been perused by this Court. This document requires some scrutiny by this Court. 8. It is noticed by this Court that the alleged Notice under Section 7 of Act 3 of 1905 is handwritten and it is on Revenue Stamp Paper of ‘Five Annas’. 9. Admittedly, the Photocopy of the alleged Notice for eviction under Section 7 of the Madras Land Encroachment Act, 1905 on 04.12.1953 is on a non-judicial stamp paper. A Notice issued by the Government would not be done on a stamp paper, for the State is not rendering any transaction which necessitates the use of a Revenue Stamp Paper. Show Cause Notices or any Final Notices issued by any Government for initiating any coercive steps are neither the ‘instruments of exchange’ nor are they issued on Revenue Stamp papers by the State. Purpose and use of a Revenue Stamp Paper is with regard to issues relating to the ‘Instruments of Exchange’ reflecting transactions between the parties. Only when the State has to enter into contract with any private parties, which is a ‘transaction’ perse, such contract is reduced on Revenue Stamp Papers which ensures that some passed on to the state for entering into the said transaction. revenue is This Court is unable to countenance as to why the Government had commissioned a Revenue Stamp Paper of ‘5 Annas’ on 04.12.1953 for issuing an ‘Eviction Notice’ under section 7 of the Madras Land Encroachment Act, 1905. This is not only rather strange but it is also opposed to the usual mode by which ‘Notices’ are issued by the Administration. 10. 11. In Hindustan Steel Ltd. V. Dilip Construction Company; (1969) 1 see 597, a three Judge bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court had held at para No.7 as under: 5 ‘The Stamp Act is a fiscal measure enacted to secure revenue for the State on certain classes of instruments: It is not enacted to arm a litigant with a weapon of technicality to meet the case of his opponent. ” The object of the Stamp Act is also spelt out in ‘S. Krishnamurthy Aiyar's Commentary: “S. Krishnamurthy Aiyar, The Indian Stamp Act, An Exhaustive Summary with State Amendments, 7^" Edn., p.22", wherein it is stated as under: 12. “The object of the Stamp Act is a purely fiscal regulation. Its sole object is to increase the revenue and all its provisions must be construed as having In view the protection of revenue. It is not enacted to arm a litigant with a weapon of technicality to meet the case of his opponent The whole object is to see that the revenue of the State is realised to the utmost extent” 13. In S.N. Mathur Vs. Board of Revenue and others; (2009) 13 see 301, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India had dealt with the principles relating to charging stamp duty (Revenue), in this regard, Para-12 of the said judgment is usefully extracted hereunder: 12. The principles relating to charging stamp duty are well settled. They are: (i) The object of the Stamp Act is generation of revenue. It is therefore a fiscal enactment and has to be interpreted accordingly, (ii) Stamp duty is levied with reference to the Instrument and not in regard to the transaction, unless otherwise specifically provided in the Act. (Hi) Stamp duty is determined with reference to the substance of the transaction as embodied in the instrument and not with reference to the title, caption or nomenclature of the instrument. (Iv) For classification of an instrument, that is, to determine whether an instrument comes within a particular description In an article In the Schedule to the Act, the instrument should be read and construed as a whole, (v) Where an instrument falls under two or more descriptions In iha Schedule to the Act, the 6 instrument shall be chargeable with only one duty, that is the highest of the duties applicable to the different description. But where an instrument relates to several distinct matters, it shall be chargeable with the aggregate amount of duties to which separate instruments would be chargeable. Merely because an instrument answers the definition of a trust deed it does not cease to be a settlement deed for the purpose of stamp duty, if it answers the definition settlement’’ also. It Is well settled that all trusts are not settlements, and all settlements are not trusts, but a deed of trust can also be a deed of settlement ” of 14. In Manish Jitendrakumar Shah Vs. see OnLine Guj 1056, the Division Bench Gujarat had the occasion to deal with the regard Para Nos. 99, 100, 102 to 104 of the said Bench of Gujarat is usefully extracted hereunder: 99. “Stamp” is defined in Section 2(26) of the 1899 Act it reads as follows: 2(26) Stamp” means any mark, seal or endorsement by any agency or person duly authorised by the State Government and Includes an adhesive or impressed stamp, for the purpose of duty chargeable under this Act. ” State of Gujarat; 2020 of the Hon’ble High Court of concept of ‘Stamp Paper’. In this judgment of the Division 100. Further, “paper” is also defined in Section 2(18) of the 1899 Act and it reads as follows: 2(18) “paper” includes vellum, parchment other material on which written. ” or any an instrument may be 101. XXXXXXX 102. The words “duly stamped” as defined under the 1899 Act and the 1958 Act carries the same meaning. Further the word “instrument” is defined in Section 2(14) of the 1899 Act as follows: every document by which any right or liability is, or purports to be, created, transferred, limited, extended, extinguished or record. ” ‘2(14) “Instrument” includes 7 103. Word "instrument” is also defined in section 2(1) of the 1958 Act as follows: “2(1) “instrument” includes every document by which any right or liability is, or purports to be created, transferred, limited, extended, extinguished or recorded, but does not include a bill of exchange, cheque, promissory note, bill of lading, letter of credit, policy of insurance, transfer of share, debenture, proxy and receipt. ” 104. Under both the definitions the includes all the documents by which any right or liability is or purports to be created, transferred, limited, extended, extinguished or recorded. Both judicial and non-judicial stamp papers are used for the above purpose. ” ‘instrument The above discussion would clearly indicate that the Government, while issuing administrative Notices/Orders under the provisions of a statute for eviction of encroachers, shall never use the Revenue Stamp Paper by paying ‘5 Annas’ either in the year 1953 or at anytime. It can be never be said that the Government is required to use the Revenue Stamp Paper for issuance of Notice or Show Cause Notices or the Official Notice for initiating any coercive action which is likely to be detrimental to the interest of the concerned parties. 15. This apart, on perusal of the Photocopy of the stamp paper filed by the Writ Petitioner along with the Memo, it shows the date of purchase as being 15.06.1953, but it does not indicate as to who had purchased the Revenue Stamp Paper and for what purpose. This apart, as it is already held by this Court that the routine business of the Government which includes issuance of Notices/Orders, as the case may be, are never administered on non-judicial stamp papers and therefore, this Court would have no hesitation to hold that the Writ Petitioner or his predecessors have fabricated this document and styled it as ‘Eviction Notice’ under Section 7 of the Madras Land Encroachment Act, 1905 dated 04.12.1953. 16. 8 17. In this view of the matter, the present Writ Petition is not only devoid of merit, but is also an abuse of process. Although, it is a deserving case for imposition of exemplary costs on the Writ Petitioner, since it is noticed by this Court that the Writ Petitioner is a poor person, this Court has desisted from imposing such exemplary costs 18. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this 19. order. Sd/- K. TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER One Fal, Copy the HON|BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD (For His Lordship’s kind perusal) 1. One CC to Sri G. V. S. Mehar Kumar 2. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra 3. One CC to Ms. S. Pranathi, Advocate [OPUC] 4. 9 L.R. Copies. 5. The Under Secretary Union of India, Ministry of Law Company Affairs, New Delhi. 6. The Secretary, A.P. High Court Advocates Association, A.P. at Amaravati, Guntur District. 7. Two CD Copies To, Advocate [OPUC] Pradesh [OUT] Justice & High Court of Cnr HIGH COURT N DATED:30/07/2025 LR. COPIES ORDER WP NO. 16760 OF 2025 DISMISSING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS