1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 25370 OF 2020 Between: 1. Kagithala Appalakondamma, (DIED) (as per LRs P2 to P4) Wife of late Kagithala Rama Rao, Aged about 75 years, Occ. Household, R/o D.No. 4-27-7, Kagitala vari Street, Pedawaltair, Visakhapatnam- 530017. Andhra Pradesh. 2. Kagithala Poll Reddy, S/o. Late Kagithala Rama Rao, Aged 57 years, R/o. Door No. 4-27-7, Pedawaltair, Seethmmadhara Village and Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 3. Pilli Vara Lakshmi, D/o. Late Kagithala Rama Rao, Aged 55 years, R/o. Door No. 4-27-7, Pedawaltair, Seethmmadhara Village and Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 4. Venamareddy Kalavathy, D/o. Late Kagithala Rama Rao, Aged 57 years, R/o. Door No. 4-27-7, Pedawaltair, Seethmmadhara Village and Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. (Petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 are brought on record as L.R.s of the deceased sole writ petitioner as per the Court’s Order dt. 28.01.2025 in lA No. 01/2025 in Writ Petition and Affidavit) ...PETITIONERS AND 1. The State of AP, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat,Amaravati,Guntur District. 2. The District Collector, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 4. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal Visakhapatnam District. ...RESPONDENTS V v Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue any writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction calling for records for cancellation of D-Form Patta in D.Dis. order No. 387/82/B2 dated. 27-04-1982 an extent of ac. 4-75 cents of land in Sy.No. 371/1 at Madhurawada village, Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal, Visakhapatnam District by declaring the proceedings Issued by the 4th respondent in his Proceedings No. RC.No. 152/2003/A/ Dt. 04-08-2003 Is illegal arbitrary and violation of Principles of Natural Justice for not Issuing any notice and opportunity to the petitioner hence the above proceedings may be declared as null and void and set aside the same, consequently direct the respondents to restore the Patta and Issue the Pattedar pass books and title deeds and include the petitioner name in Revenue records/web in respect of ac. 4-75 cents of land in Sy.No. 371/1 at Madhurawada village, Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal, Visakhapatnam District in the interest of justice and equity. lA NO: 1 OF 2020 Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in thd circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings including the allotment/assignment of the land in Sy.No. 371/1 an extent of ac. 4-75 cents situated at Madhurawada Village, Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal, Visakhapatnam District in favour of any third party pending disposal of the present writ petition in the interest of justice and equity. J lA NO: 1 OF 2022 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 direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from his land admeasuring Ac.4-75 cents in Sy.No..371/1 of Madhurawada Village, Visakhapatnam pending disposal of writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI V V SATISH Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER 1 APHC010380392020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3458] ■-R; TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 25370/2020 Between: Kagithala Appalakondamma ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.VVSATISH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER: Heard Sri V .V. Satish, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, appearing for the respondents. th 2. Challenging the proceedings dated 04-08-2003 of the 4 respondent cancelling the D-Form Patta issued in favour of the petitioner’s 2 husband vide proceedings in D.Dis No.387/82/B2 dated 27-04-1982, the instant Writ Petition has been filed. It is contended that the petitioner’s husband late Kagithala Ramarao, was assigned land in an extent of Ac.4.75 cents in Sy.No.371/1, Madhurawada Village, Visakhapatnam, under ex service men quota vide D Form Patta in No.D.Dis No.387/82/B2 dated 27-04-1982. During his lifetime he had brought the land into cultivation. After his life time the petitioner herein has succeeded to the property. On petitioner’s application, a certificate dated 12-01-2002 was issued by the 4‘^ respondent stating that the subject land belongs to the husband of the petitioner assigned under ex-servicemen quota. 3. It is further contended that the petitioner’s husband during his lifetime filed an application for mutation of his name in revenue records. Since nothing was made by the authorities, the petitioner after she had succeeded to the property, approached the 2""^ respondent, for mutation of her name and filed an application before the 1®^ respondent for deletion of the name of the N.V.Raghavarao, entered erroneously by the 4‘^ respondent. During hearing of the said case before the 1®‘ respondent, the 4'^ respondent produced a copy of the proceedings in No. 152/2003/A dated 04-08-2003, stating that the patta that was issued in the name of the petitioner’s husband, was cancelled. Challenging the same^the present Writ Petition is filed. 4. 4- 3 -J It is contended that the impugned proceedings of cancellation have been issued after the lifetime of the petitioner’s husband and after lapse of 22 years since the assignment was granted. Relying on the GO issued by the government in G.O.Ms.No.1117 dated 11-11-1993, contends that under the said GO, ex-service men were permitted to sell the assigned land after 10 years of assignment, and the assignees would become absolute owners of the land after 10 years. Therefore contends that the said proceedings are illegal and void. 5. The 4'*^ respondent filed counter affidavit stating that D Form patta in respect of the subject land was issued in favour of one Nyapathi Raghavarao and his name was mutated in revenue records in 2001. Since he had failed to bring the land into cultivation the assignment granted in his favour was cancelled vide proceedings dated 16-04-2001 and that the land was resumed to the government, subsequently handed over to 6. VUDA. 7. It is further stated that as verified, the record relating to the assignment said to have been made in favour of the Petitioner’s husband is not available in their office and expressed doubt regarding the genuineness of the patta. Further stated about the impugned proceedings as under: “There is no such proceeding is available in this office records and hence the production of the same before the 4 respondent is not correct. The petitioner is put to strict proof of the same ” Further contended that all the documents produced are fake and fabricated documents. In reply to the counter affidavit, the petitioner has filed her reply affidavit contending that the possession of the petitioner over the subject property was recognized by the revenue authorities and the very same Tahsildar’s office had certified that the subject land belongs to the petitioner’s 8, husband. Considered the rival submissions. 9. In the light of submissions made in the counter affidavit regarding impugned proceedings, it can be safely held that the D Form patta that was issued in favour of the petitioner’s husband was not cancelled at any point of time. Even assuming it was cancelled vide impugned order, the petitioner’s husband died on 25-07-1998, in that view of the matter the order cancelling the D Form patta in 2003, is not valid, in as much as the same was issued against the dead person. 10. This Court is therefore is of the considered view that since in the 11. counter affidavit it has been denied about the existence of the impugned proceedings, and since its genesis itself has been denied, the same cannot Z A 5 be acted upon at any point of time. In view of the above stated reasons, the order has no validity in the eye of law. The consequential relief sought in the Writ Petition is for issuance of pattadar passbooks and for issuance of restoration of patta. In the light of the statement of the Tahsildar (referred supra) and in view of the above 12. observations, restoration of patta would not arise, since the patta was never cancelled. The petitioner is at liberty to approach the concerned, seeking issuance of pattadar passbooks and title deeds. With the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. 13. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- K. SRINIVASA RAJU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Amaravati, Guntur District. The District Collector, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. One CC to Sri V V Satish Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] Three CD Copies 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. TF HIGH COURT DATED:28/01/2025 ORDER WP.No.25370 of 2020 g 1 9 FEB 2C25 , Current Section DISPOSING OF THE W.P., WITHOUT COSTS