I A IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE "" PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH..N WRIT APPEAL NO: 1079 OF 2023 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent dated 11 -05-2023 in W.P No. 14732 of 2016 on the file of the High Court. Between: against the order 1. Rajkamal Agro Products Pvt. Ltd.,, Rep. by Chairman and Managing Director Mr. P.Ravi Teja, Aged 50 years, S/o. Shesha Rao, R/o 28-24- 37, Hussain Sahib Street, Arundalpet, Eluru Road, Vijayawada-2. 2. RAKA Agro Tech India Ltd., Rep. by Chairman and Managing Mr. P.Ravi Teja, Aged 50 years, S/o. Shesha Rao, R/o 28-24-37 Hussain Sahib Street, Arundalpet, Eluru Road, Vijayawada-2. Director ...APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS- AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad presently Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. The Joint Collector and Addl. District Magistrate, Praksam District Ongole. 3. The Settlement Officer, Ongole, Prakasam District. 4. The Tahsildar, Donakonda Mandal, Prakasam District. 5. Purushotam Satyanadam, S/o. Pedda Hanumanthro, Aged about 50 years, R/o. Narasimhanayunipalem, Donakonda Mandal, Prakasa District. at ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS / ■' J Counsel for the Appellants; SRI Counsel for the Respondent Nos. Counsel for the Respondent No.5: T.SREEDHAR 1 to 4: ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL SRI SRINIVASA RAO - CHEEMALADINNE The Court made the following: JUDGMENT APHC010349172023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3488] FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT APPEAL NO: 1079/2023 Between: RajkamalAgro Products Pvt.ltd., and Others AND ...APPELLANT(S) ...RESPONDENT(S) The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1.TSREEDHAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.SRINIVASA RAO CHEEMALADINNE 2.ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL (AP) The Court made the following Judgment: (perHon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) The appellants herein had purchased approximately Ac.175.41 cents of land, situated in Sy.No.152/2 of Narsimhanayinipalem Village, Donakonda Mandal, Prakasam District, in the year 1996-97, under 11 registered deeds of sale from the heirs of the original owners of the land. Subsequent to the said respondent herein, had initiated nd purchase, the Joint Collector who is 2 revision proceedings, under Section 9 of the Andhra Pattadar Passbooks Act (hereinafter which culminated in Pradesh Rights and Land referred to 'ROR Act'), in the year 1997, an order, dated 01.03.2010. The 2 nd respondent, by the said order, dated 01.03.2010, held that the entries, in the revenue records iin the names of the vendors and family members of the vendors of the petitioners, revenue records for the past 5 to 6 decades which were in the wrongly entered and directed the respondent took the vi have been removal of the said names. The 2’^^ view that the family of the vendors of the appellants, who were “Shrotriumdars”, had sought iissuance of ryotwari pattas which had not been granted and subsequent litigation the said Shrotriumdars in this regard had also failed. However, suppressing these facts, continued to allow their names to be shown in the revenue records as owners and the appellants had to their vendors. The 2"^^ purchased the land which did not belong took the view that the land i been given ryotwari patta under the Estate respondent IS government land in as much Abolition Act. The appellants being aggrieved by the this Court, by way of W.P. No. 14732 Court, by an order dated 11.05.2023, the Shrotriumdars, had been did not have dismissed the Writ Petition. as no person had 2. said orders had approached of 2016. A learned Single Judge of this had held that the rejection of the claim of suppressed and any title which could be consequently the Shrotriumdars passed on to the petitioners and 3. Aggrieved by the said order moved the present appeal. of dismissal, the appellants have 3 ^4 Sri T. Sridhar, learned counsel for the appellants, primarily, set out three grounds of appeal. The first ground of appeal was that revision, under Section 9, after a period of 40 years, is not permissible. The second ground was that Section 12 of the ROR Act stipulates that the provisions of the ROR Act would not apply to government land and consequently the 2""' respondent could not have invoked Section 9 of the ROR Act. The third ground was that the claims of the Shrotriumdars over the entire extent of Ac.300 cents had been 4. set aside is incorrect and that the claims were rejected only for about 17 to 18 acres 5. The learned Government Pleader on the other hand would contend that the claims over the Ac.300.00 acres of land, out of which Ac. 175.00 cents of land claimed by the appellants is apart, had been rejected and no ryotwari patta has been issued to any part of this land. He would further submit that the provisions of Section 12 of the ROR Act would not be applicable in the present case as the finding of the 2"*^ respondent had converted what appeared to be private land into government land and the bar under Section 12 would be applicable only to land which has always been treated as “government land”. The learned Government Pleader would also contend that there can be no hard and fast rule of limitation, on the exercise of power, by the appropriate authority under Section 9 of the ROR Act. He would contend that in cases such as the present case, it would be open to the 2'^^ respondent to undertake a revision as the claim of the vendors of the appellants is clearly untenable and not based on any record. 4 % 6. The learned Government Pleader would also rely upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Anathula Sudhakar P. Buchi Reddy and Others^to contend that the vs appellants are not in possession of the land as possession would follow title, in cases of huge extent of vacant land. There can be no quarrel with the proposition, as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. However, the question before this Court is a question of title and the maintainability of the proceedings of the 2"'^ respondent. As such, this issue may not be relevant to the present case. 7. The question of whether revision can be initiated after a prolonged period of time had come up before the erstwhile High Court of Judicature Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh case of Prathap Jungle Resorts Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad and another at in the vs. Joint Collector, Hyderabad and another 2. in this case, the concerned Joint Collector sought revision of the records after a period of more than 50 years, A learned Single judge had, after reviewing various Judgments on this issue, held that exercise of suo moto revisional power after 40 years is unsustainable. Though the revisional power considered in that case arose under Section 166- B of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli, the principle set out therein would be applicable to the provisions of Section 9 of . the ROR Act. ‘ 12008) 4 see 594 ^ (2009) 1ALD 401: (2008) 4 ALT 794 5 8. Section 12 of the ROR Act reads as follows; 12. Act not to apply to Government lands - Nothing in this Act shall apply to the lands belonging to the State Government or Central Government. The above section mandates that the provisions of this Act would not be applicable to government land. In such a situation, the 2"^^^ respondent 9. could not have invoked the provisions of Section 9 of the ROR Act, to set aside the entries made in the revenue records and the consequential pattadar pass books, on the ground that the land in question is government land. The question of the applicability of the provisions of the ROR Act to 10. government land had come up before the learned single judge, in the aforesaid case, who had held as follows; “It requires to be noticed that if it is the case of the State as is apparent that the lands (in Survey No.65) are Government lands, the provisions of the 1971 Act are inapplicable as the provisions of this Act are inapplicable to Government lands, vide Section 12 of the 1971 Act. Since the initiation of the proceedings under Section 9 of the 1971 Act is on the basis of an assumption by the second respondent that the lands are Government lands, power (under Section 9 of the 1971 Act could not have been invoked and the first respondent had no power, authority or jurisdiction to have passed an order under Section 9 of the 1971 Act. The aforesaid judgment of the learned Single Judge was assailed in W.A.No.1103 of 2008 which came to be disposed of by a Division Bench of 11. the erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh, on 28.11.2013. The Division Bench had held that the view of the learned Single Judge regarding exercise of revisional authority after a long period of time was affirmed. However, the Division Bench also took the view that it would in that case, to approach the civil Court appropriate to leave it open to the Government to establish correct title. 12. In such circumstances, this the short ground that the 2"*^ Section 9 of the ROR Act. from invoking such appeal would have to be allowed on respondent did not have jurisdiction However, this would not provisions of law, as are permissible to invoke preclude the authorities against the appellants. 13. Accordingly, this Writ Appeal is allowed, by setting aside the orders Of the learned single judge Joint Collector, dated 01.03.2010. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous as well as the revisional order of the 2 There shall be no order as to costs, petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- M RAMESH BABU DEPUTY REGISTRAR nd respondent //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1- The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department Pradesh, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi 2. The Joint Collector and Addl. District Ongole. 3. The Settlement Officer. Ongole, Prakasam 4. The Tahsildar, Donakonda Mandal, “ 5. One CC to Sri T. Sreedhar. Advocate (OPUCJ 6. One CC to Sri Srinivasa Rao Cheemaladinne 7. Two CC's to the Addl. Advocate General Amaravati [OUT] 8. Three CD Copies. , State of Andhra i, Guntur District. Magistrate, Praksam District at District. Prakasam District. , Advocate[OPUC] High Court of A.P. at ssb HIGH COURT DATED:21/02/2025 ^1= ANO^ JUDGMENT 5 01 MAR 2025 S WA.No.1079 of 2023 O o» ^ . Current Section . ^ ALLOWING THE W.A. WITHOUT COSTS