¥ -VV IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI MONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT APPEAL NO: 780 OF 2024 Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the order dated 24.04.2024 passed in W.P.No. 37450 of 2022 on the file of the High Court. Between: 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. The District Collector, Anakapalli District, Anakapalli. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Anakapally, Anakapalli District. 4. The Tahsildar, Parwada Mandal, Anakapalli District. 5. The Sub-Registrar, Lankelapalem, Anakapalli, Anakapalli District. ...APPELLANT’S RESPONDENTS AND 1. Y Chandra Sekhar Reddy, S/o late Pulla Reddy, aged about 66 years, Occ Ex- Service man, R/o MIG-47, Simhapuri Layout, Vepagunta Post, Visakhapatnam District. ...RESPONDENT lA NO: 2 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the order dt; 24.04.2024 passed by the Learned Single Judge in WP.37450 of 2022, Pending disposal of the writ appeal. lA NO: 1 OF 2n?fi Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to receive the copy of the assignment register furnished by the respondent under Right to Information Act in SR NO.568/2022/SA dated 11.01.2023 as additional material paper Counsel for the AppellantviSRI. GP FOR ASSIGNMENT Counsel for the Respondents.SRI O MANOHAR REDDY Senior Councel for M/S O M R LAW FIRM The Court made the following ORDER: APHC010370072024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3525] MM MONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT APPEAL NO: 780/2024 Between: ...APPELLANT{S) The State Of Ap and Others AND ...RESPONDENT Y Chandra Sekhar Reddy Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1.GP FOR ASSIGNMENT Counsel for the Respondent: 1.0 M R LAW FIRM The Court made the following Judgment: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) The respondent, had approached this Court, by way of W.P.No.5924 of 2018. The contentions of the 1^' respondent, in this Writ Petition, were that the 1®* respondent had been assigned Ac.4.72 cents of land in Sy.No.359/2 of Desapatruni Palem Village of Parawada Mandal under the Ex-Servicemen category. However, this land was kept in the prohibitory list maintained under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908. Aggrieved by this inclusion, the 1 St w 2 RRR,J & Dr.KMR,J W.A.No.780 of 2024 respondent had approached the District Collector to remove the same. However, the District Collector had rejected this request. Aggrieved by this respondent, had approached the Court, by way of W.P.No.5924 of 2018, for removal of the said entry. A learned Single Judge of this Court, by a judgment, dated 25.03.2022, had disposed of the Writ Petition. It is also necessary to notice the contentions, raised by both sides, in this Writ Petition. The District Collector, had taken the stand that the status of the rejection, the 1 respondent as an Ex-Serviceman is in doubt and that the assignment proceedings relied upon by the 1®' respondent are also not genuine in much as the supporting records are not available or they are fabricated. The learned Single Judge, held that, the said contentions are incorrect and went to the extent of holding that the District Collector had invented a dispute to come out of the requirements of Clause 6 of G.O.Ms.No.279, dated 04.07.2016, which provides for placing lands in the prohibitory list under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908. The learned Single Judge, after noticing all the facts, on 25.03.2022, disposed of the Writ Petition by setting aside the order of rejection of the District Collector and with a further direction to verify the entire record relating to issue of patta to the 1®' respondent and consider the report of the 4‘^ respondent - Tahsildar therein, certifying the genuiness of the assignment. as 2. The District Collector, in pursuance of the said directions, conducted an enquiry and passed fresh proceedings, dated 21.07.2022 bearing 3 RRR,J & Dr.KMR,J W.A.No.780 of 2024 Rc.No.72/2022/L3, holding that the assignment proceedings are not genuine and that the request of the respondent for de-notification of the subject land stands rejected. The 1®* respondent, being aggrieved by the said order of the District 3. Collector, approached this Court, by way of W.P.No.37450 of 2022. A learned Single Judge of this Court, after considering the contentions raised by both sides, was pleased to allow the Writ Petition, by way of a judgment, dated 24.04.2024. It may be noted that, the learned Single Judge, had held that, the impugned proceedings of the District Collector were passed in controversion of the directions of the learned Single Judge, dated 4. 25.03.2022, in W.P.No.5924 of 2018. The learned Single Judge, had recorded that the revenue records demonstrated that the land had been assigned to the 1®‘ respondent and that the observation of the District Collector that the claim of the 1®‘ respondent was being rejected, on account of the revenue record not being available is incorrect in as much as the District Collector had taken the said view without conduct of any enquiry in the office of the Tahsildar. The learned Single Judge, had also held that, the entire case of the 5. District Collector was not based on a contention that, the documents were created, but on the ground that, the revenue records are not properly available. Aggrieved by this order, the State has filed the present Writ Appeal. 6. w 4 RRR,J & Dr.KMRJ W.A.No.780 of 2024 The learned Government Pleader, appearing for the appellants, \A/ould contend that the basic requirement for accepting the genuiness of a D.K.T. Patta is an existence of a D.R. file. In the present case, such a file was missing. Consequently, the District Collector, had taken the view that the D.K.T. Patta, relied upon by the 1®* respondent is a fabrication. The learned Government Pleader, would also contend that the revenue record, including 10(1) adangal etc. produced by the 1®* respondent is not genuine in as much as the corresponding record in the office of the Tahsildar was missing. 7. Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for M/s. O.M.R. Law Firm, appearing for the 1®‘ respondent, would contend that, the D.R. file is very much available in the office of the Tahsildar. He relies upon the copy of the D.R. file furnished to the 1®* respondent under the Right to Information Act. A perusal of the said copy, shows that there is a D.R. file and the record of issuance of D.K.T. Patta in favour of the 1®‘ respondent is recorded in the said file. In these circumstances, the stand of the Appellant Authorities that the patta is suspect, cannot be accepted. 8. 9. The learned Government Pleader, would also contend that, there was wide spread manipulation of land records in the area and a special team has been constituted to go into these issues. 10. However, the genuiness of the documents before this Court, cannot be decided, on the basis of irregularities that are said to have been found in the assignment of other land in this Mandal. In view of the existence of the D.R. 5 M RRRJ & Dr.KMRJ W.A.No.780of2024 record as seen from the response to the R.T.I. application of respondent, the contentions of the Appellant Authorities St the 1 that, the record was manipulated or that the D.K.T. Patta was fabricated, cannot be accepted. 11. Accordingly, this Writ Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- K. TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ^ Vr SECTION OFFICER To, 1. Two CCs to GP for Assignment, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 2. One CCto d’M R'LAWFIRM [OPUC] 3. Three Gjp Copie.s PRK p HIGH COURT DATED:17/03/2025 ORDER WA.No.780 of 2024 DISMISSING THE W.A WITHOUT COSTS