% APHC010332332025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI MONDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT APPEAL NO: 782 OF 2025 Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dt. 19.03.2025 in WP No. 6930 of 2025 on the file of the High Court. Between: 1. R Seethamma, W/o. Late R. Chinnappa Reddy, age 82 years, R. Mohan Reddy, S/o. Late R. Chinnappa Reddy, age 65 years R. Manjula, , W/o. Late R. Sudhakar Reddy, age 47 years. Minor R. Nikhitha, D/o. Late R. Sudhakar Reddy, age 24 years rep. by mother Manjula, Minor R. Rakshitha, S/o. Late R. Sudhakar Reddy, age 22 years rep. by mother Manjula R. Srinivasulu Reddy, S/o. Late R. Chinnappa Reddy, age 51 years R. Ashok Kumar Reddy, S/o. Late R. Chinnappa Reddy, age 47 years 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Appellants No.1 to 7 are resident of Door No.4-431, Gangavaram Village Post and Mandal, Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh ...Appellants AND 4 1. The State of AP, Rep by the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, A.P., Secretariat, Amaravathi. 2. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh. 3. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariate, Velgapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh. 4. The District Collector, Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh. 5. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Palamaner, Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh. 6. The Tahsildhar, Palamaner Mandaf, Chittoor District. 7. The Palamaner Municipality, Rep.by its Commissioner, Palamaner, Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh. ... Respondents/Respondents 8. Rashool Noorjahan, W/o. Late S.A. Rafak, age 57 years, R/o. D.No.27- 100/7, Baazar Street, Palamaner Village, Palamaner Mandal, Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh. 9. Mohammed Azaruddin, S/o.S.A. Rafak, aged 32 years, R/o. D.No.27- 100/7, Baazar Street, Palamaner Village. Palamaner Mandal, Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh ...Respondents/Petitioners lA NO: 4 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 order passed by the learned single judge in W.P. No. 6930 of 2025, dated 19.03.2025. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI NEELI MANI KANTA Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 8 & 9: SRI N BHARATH SIMHA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.3; GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1,4 to 6: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.2: GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent No.7: SRI GUDAPATI LAKSHMINARAYANA (SC FOR MUNICIPALITIES IN RAYALASEEMA REGION) The Court made the following order: 1 APHC010332332025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) SMS [3541] MONDAY,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT APPEAL NO: 782/2025 Between: R Seethamma and Others ...APPELLANT{S) AND The State Of Ap and Others Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1.NEELI MANI KANTA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.N BHARATH SIMHA REDDY 2.GP FOR HOME 3.GP FOR REVENUE 4.GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV 5.Gudapati Lakshminarayana SC For Municipalities in Rayalaseema Region The Court made the following Judgment; (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) ...RESPONDENT(S) Respondent Nos.8 and 9 had approached this Court, by way of W,P.No.6930 of 2025, contending that they are in possession of 129.83 iJS sq.yards of land in D.No.12-122, Basavanna Katta Streot, Revenue Ward 12, Palamaner Village or Sy.No.568/2 of Palamaner Village and Mandal, Chittoor District. Respondents 8 and 9 contended that the revenue authorities are seeking to dispossess them from this land as if they are land grabbers and that their possession should be protected. 2. A learned Single Judge of this Court, by way of an order, dated 19.03.2025, disposed of the Writ Petition holding that prima facie respondents 8 and 9 are in possession of the said land and that they cannot be dispossessed except by following due process of law. 3. Aggrieved by this judgment, the appellants herein had moved the present Writ Appeal after seeking relief of this Court. 4. The case of the appellants is that they are the owners and are in has also been confirmed by possession of the aforesaid land and the same IX Additional District Judge, Chittoor, dated 22.02.2023, in the judgment of the such circumstances, the O.S.No.12 of 2017. The appellants contend that in learned Single Judge that respondents 8 and 9 are in finding of the ion of the land effectively takes away the rights acquired by them over and that the respondents 8 and 9, under the guise of the orders possession the property of the learned Single Judge, are seeking to dispossess them from the said land. learned counsel appearing for the Simha Reddy, learned counsel appearing for Heard Smt. Padmavathi 5. Appellants, Sri N. Bharath 3 respondents 8 and 9 and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the official respondents. The learned Assistant Government Pleader has submitted written instructions, dated 01.07.2025, given by the Tahsildar, Palamaner Mandal. In these written instructions, the Tahsildar has given a detailed report relating to the flow of title between various persons to the property in question. 6. After perusing the record and after hearing the submissions both sides, it appears that there are rivals claims over the property. As such, the prima facie finding of the learned Single Judge, that respondents 8 and 9 are in possession of the property, may have to be treated as a finding which has been given in the absence of the appellants herein and as such would not be binding on them. 7. on 8. Further, in view of the rival claims, it would not be appropriate for this Court to take a view either way as to the identity of the persons who are in possession of the said land. 9. In any event, when there is no dispute that the property is private property, the question of the revenue authorities interfering or seeking to dispossess any person from the said property would not arise. Any such dispute would have to be raised only before the civil Courts of appropriate jurisdiction. 10. In the circumstances, this Writ Appeal is disposed of leaving it open to the appellants as well as respondents 8 and 9 to raise their claims 4 before the appropriate Civil Court and such Civil Court would decide the litigation without taking into account any of the observations made by the learned Single Judge or any observation made by this Court while deciding the dispute. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. Sd/-V.DIWAKAR DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// 6TOffcOFFICER SE To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, A.P., Secretariat, Amaravathi. 2. The Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh. 3. The Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariate, Velgapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh. 4. The District Collector, Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh. 5. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Palamaner, Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh. 6. The Tahsildhar, Palamaner Mandal, Chittoor District. 7. The Commissfoner, Palamaner Municipality, Palamaner, Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh. 8. One CC to Sri Neeli Mani Kanta, Advocate [OPUC] 9. One CC to Sri N Bharath Simha Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 10. Two CCs to GP for Home, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 11. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 12. Two CCs to GP for Muncipal Admn Urban Dev, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 13. One CC to Sri Gudapati Lakshminarayana (SC For Municipalities in Rayalaseema Region) Advocate [OPUC] 14. Two CD Copies TF HIGH COURT DATED:14/07/2025 JUDGMENT WA NO. 782 OF 2025 25JUL 2025 g DISPOSING OF THE W.A., WITHOUT COSTS