1 APHC010370652021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] THURSDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 23755/2021 Between: Narla Karunakara Reddy ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P RAJASEKHAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. RAVULA NAGARJUNA 3. CHALLA SIVASANKAR The Court made the following order: Challenging the action of the respondents in keeping the petitioner’s agricultural dry lands, admeasuring Ac.0.88 cents in Sy.No.69/4B, Ac.0.21 cents in Sy.No.69/4A, Ac.1.37 cents in Sy.No.69/2, Ac.1.19 cents in Sy.No.68 and Ac.1.99 cents in Sy.No.67, total admeasuring an extent of Ac.05.64 cents, situated at 2 Bastipadu Village, Kalluru Mandalam, Kurnool District, in the Disputed Register, the present writ petition is filed. 2. Heard Sri P. Rajasekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ravula Nagarjuna, learned counsel for the 4th respondent, Sri Challa Siva Sankar, learned counsel for the 5th & 6th respondents and Sri Venkata Satyanaraya, learned Assistant Government Pleader for revenue. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the contents of the affidavit, submitted that the petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of the subject property, as the same was acquired by him through the preliminary decree/judgment dated 03.09.1988 and final decree dated 15.04.2005 passed in IA.No.83/2001 in O.S.No.43 of 1992 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool. In view of the same, the petitioner submitted an application before the 3rd respondent for incorporating his name in the revenue records and accordingly, the authorities have incorporated his name in the revenue records in respect of the subject property. Since then, he has been in continuous possession of the subject property, without any interference from the thirds parties. But, all of a sudden, the unofficial respondents’ names were incorporated in the Adangal deleting the petitioner’s name in respect of the subject land. On noticing the said illegality, the petitioner submitted an application to the 3rd respondent requesting to change the web land entry in the Adangal, as per the entry in record of right. Consequently, the 3rd respondent issued notice dated 11.06.2020 to the petitioner as well as the unofficial respondents. Having issued notice, the 3rd respondent failed to enquire into the matter, but however and put the subject property in the dispute register, without 3 issuing notice. He further submitted that the then Tahsildar-4th respondent, in collusion with the unofficial respondents, has changed the entries in the web land Adangal, which is illegal and impermissible under the law. As such, filed the present writ petition and prayed to pass appropriate orders protecting the interest of the petitioner. 4. On the other hand, Sri Challa Shiva Shankar, learned counsel for the unofficial respondents, submitted that there is a serious title dispute between the petitioner and the unofficial respondents, wherein the petitioner has to approach the competent civil court but cannot ventilate his grievance before the revenue authorities or before this Court under Article 226. Even before keeping the subject property into the prohibitory list, the authorities have entered the petitioner’s name without following law, as such, the petitioner cannot find fault with the revenue authorities. Hence, the writ petition is misconceived, devoid of merits and deserves dismissal. 5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for revenue, submitted that the Tahsildar has issued notice to the petitioner on 11.06.2020, and he cannot say that the Tahsildar has not issued any notice. There is neither illegality nor procedural impropriety in keeping the subject property in Dispute Register; as such, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. Sri Ravula Nagarjuna, learned counsel for the 4th respondent, submitted that the 4th respondent, at that point of time, has kept the subject property in Dispute Register to safeguard the interest of both the parties. 4 7. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the unofficial respondents has preferred a suit vide O.S.No.365 of 2020 on the file of II Additional Junior civil Judge, Kurnool, for declaration of title and permanent injunction. Having filed the said suit, he cannot approach the revenue authorities and ask them to entertain their grievance. Further, a notice was issued to the petitioner only after receiving a complaint by the RDO, and that too after keeping the subject property in the Dispute Register. In these circumstances, the contention of the learned Assistant Government Pleader cannot be taken into consideration and accordingly, prayed to pass appropriate orders protecting the interest of the petitioner. 8. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties. 9. It is not in dispute that earlier the petitioner’s name found place in the revenue records. Once the petitioner’s name found place in the revenue records, the revenue authorities cannot keep the subject property in dispute register without issuing notice to the concerned parties. It is well settled principle of law that the Tahsildar has to issue proper notice to the concerned parties before keeping the property in the dispute register. Learned counsel for the respondents in one voice contended that the then Tahsildar kept the subject property in the dispute register only to safeguard the interest of all the parties, however, if the petitioner has any grievance, he has to approach competent civil Court but not before this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India. Admittedly, no enquire was done and no notice was issued before keeping the property in the dispute register. Even though, the intention of the Tahsildar may be to protect the interest of the parties, but he has no power to keep the 5 property in the dispute register without following the procedure. In these circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to dispose of the present writ petition by passing the following order: “The concerned authority is directed to delete the lands admeasuring Ac.0.88 cents in Sy.No.69/4B, Ac.0.21 cents in Sy.No.69/4A, Ac.1.37 cents in Sy.No.69/2, Ac.1.19 cents in Sy.No.68 and Ac.1.99 cents in Sy.No.67, total admeasuring an extent of Ac.05.64 cents, situated at Bastipadu Village, Kalluru Mandalam, Kurnool District form the Dispute Register. However, if the authorities have any intention to interfere, they would follow due procedure contemplated under law. 10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. ____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date: 06.02.2025 ANS 6 456 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 23755/2021 Date: 06.02.2025 ANS