APHC010379852024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 19400 OF 2024 Between; Vallepu Chinna Ramanna, S/o Venkatanna, aged about 67 years, Hindu, cultivation, residing at D.No.4-38-A, Agraharampalli, Puligundlapalli, Talupula H/o Mandalam, Ananthapuramu District. ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary Revenue Department A.P Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati 2. The District Collector, Anathapuramu District, Presently Sri Sathya Sai District. Puttaparthy. 3. The Joint Collector, Anathapuramu District, Presently Sri Sathya Sai District. Puttaparthy. 4. The Revenue Divisional officer, Puttaparthy, Anathapuramu District, Presently Sri Sathya Sai District. 5. The Tahsildar, Talupula Mandal, Anathapuramu District, Presently Sri Sathya Sai District. 6. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Talupula Police Station, Talupula, Sri Sathya Sai District. 7. Burusu Ramanjaneyulu, S/o Venkataswamy, aged about 35 years, Hindu, cultivation, residing at Rajanalavandlapalli, H/o Puligundlapall i, Talupula Mandalam, Ananthapuramu District, Presently Sri Sathya Sai District. 8. Burusu Anjaneyulu, S/o Venkataswamy, aged about 40 years, Hindu, cultivation, residing at Rajanalavandlapalli, H/o Puligundlapall i, Talupula Mandalam, Ananthapuramu District, Presently Sri Sathya Sai District. 9. Burusu Veeranjaneyulu, S/o Anjanappa, aged about 40 years, Hindu, cultivation, residing at Rajanalavandlapalli, H/o Puligundlapall i, Talupula Mandalam, Ananthapuramu District, Presently Sri Sathya Sai District. 10. Burusu Krishna, S/o Anjanappa, aged about 30 years, Hindu, cultivation, residing at Rajanalavandlapalli, H/o Puligundlapalli, Talupula Mandalam, Ananthapuramu District, Presently Sri Sathya Sai District. ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS is filed declaring the order passed by the Respondent No.5 viz. The Tahsildar, Talupula Mandal, Sri Sathya Sai District, Puttaparthy vide Rc.No.A/207/2020 Dated 24-06-2024 and the order passed by the Respondent No.4 in R.Dis.No.122/2019/E2 Dated 21-01-2020 as illegal, arbitrary, untenable, irrational without jurisdiction and in violation of the principles of natural justice and against to the fundamental rights under Article 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently set aside the order passed by the Respondent No.5 viz. The Tahsildar, Talupula Mandal, Sri Sathya Sai District, Puttaparthy vide Rc.No.A/207/2020 Dated 24-06-2024 and the order passed by the Respondent No.4 in R.Dis.No.122/2019/E2 Dated 21- 01-2020 and to direct the Respondent No.6 not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner to disposes him from the land admeasuring Ac.3.49 ... r' cents in S.No.462-2 of Puligundia Palli Revenue Village, Talupula Mandal Presently Sri Sathya Sai District. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 operation of the order passed by the Respondent No.5 Tahsildar, Talupula Mandal, Sri Sathya Sai District Rc. No.A/207/2020 Dated 24-06-2024 viz. The Puttaparthy vide and the order passed by the Respondent No.4 in R.Dis.No.122/2019/E2 Dated 21-01-2020 and to direct the Respondent No.6 not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner from dispossessing the petitioner from the land admeasuring Ac.3.49 S.No.462-2 of Puligundia Palli Revenue Village, Talupula Mandal Sri Sathya Sai District pending disposal of the Writ Petition. cents in Presently Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI S KRISHNA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondents: SRI V NITESH The Court made the following order: APHC010379852024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] MONDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 19400/2024 Between: 1.VALLEPU CHINNA RAMANNA, S/0 VENKATANNA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS HINDU, CULTIVATION, RESIDING AT D.N0.4-38-A, AGRAHARAMPALLI, TALUPULA H/0 MANDALAM, ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT. PULIGUNDLAPALLI, ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT A.P SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ANATHAPURAMU DISTRICT, PRESENTLY SRI SATHYA SAI DISTRICT. PUTTAPARTHY. 3. THE JOINT COLLECTOR, PRESENTLY SRI SATHYA SAI DISTRICT. PUTTAPARTHY. 4. THC REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PUTTAPARTHY, ANATHAPURAMU DISTRICT, PRESENTLY SRI SATHYA SAI DISTRICT. ANATHAPURAMU DISTRICT, ANATHAPURAMU 5. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUPULA MANUAL, DISTRICT, PRESENTLY SRI SATHYA SAI DISTRICT. 6. THE SUBINSPECTOR OF POLICE, TALUPULA POLICE STATION, TALUPULA, SRI SATHYA SAI DISTRICT. 7. BURUSU RAMANJANEYULU. S/0 VENKATASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, HINDU CULTIVATION, RESIDING AT RAJANALAVANDLAPALLI TALUPULA MANDALAM PRESENTLY SRI SATHYA SAI DISTRICT. 8. BURUSU.ANJANEYULU, S/0 VENKATASWAMY AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, HINDU, CULTIVATION, RAJANALAVANDLAPALLI, TALUPULA MANDALAM, PRESENTLY SRI SATHYA SAI DISTRICT. 9. BURUSU VEERANJANEYULU, S/0 ANJANAPPA ABOUT 40 YEARS, HINDU, CULTIVATION RAJANALAVANDLAPALLI, TALUPULA MANDALAM, PRESENTLY SRI SATHYA SAI DISTRICT. 10.BURUSU KRISHNA, S/0 ANJANAPPA, YEARS, HINDU, CULTIVATION, RAJANALAVANDLAPALLI, TALUPULA MANDALAM, PRESENTLY SRI SATHYA SAI DISTRICT. H/0 PULIGUNDLAPALLI, ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT, RESIDING AT H/0 PULIGUNDLAPALLI, ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT, AGED RESIDING AT H/0 PULIGUNDLAPALLI, ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT. AGED ABOUT 30 RESIDING AT H/0 PULIGUNDLAPALLI, ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT, ...RESPONDENT(S); Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS is filed declaring the order passed by the Respondent No.5 viz. The Tahsildar, Talupula Mandal, Sri Sathya Sai District, Puttaparthy vide Rc.No.A/207/2020 Dated 24-06-2024 and the order passed by the Respondent No.4 in R.Dis.No.122/2019/E2 Dated 21-01-2020 as illegal, arbitrary, untenable, irrational without jurisdiction and in violation of the principles of natural justice and against to the fundamental rights under Article 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently set aside the order passed by the Respondent No.5 viz. The Tahsildar, Talupula Mandal, Sri Sathya Sai District, Puttaparthy vide Rc.No.A/207/2020 Dated 24-06-2024 and the order passed by the Respondent No.4 in R.Dis.No.122/2019/E2 Dated 21-01- 2020 and to direct the Respondent No.6 not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner to disposes him from the land admeasuring Ac.3.49 cents in S.No.462-2 of Puligundia Palli Revenue Village, Talupula Mandal Presently Sri Sathya Sai District and pass lA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 operation of the order passed by the Respondent No.5 viz. The Tahsildar, Talupula Mandal, Sri Sathya Sai District, Puttaparthy vide Rc.No.A/207/2020 Dated 24-06-2024 and the order passed by the Respondent No.4 in R.Dis.No.122/2019/E2 Dated 21-01-2020 and to direct the Respondent No.6 not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner from dispossessing the petitioner from the land admeasuring Ac.3.49 cents in S.No.462-2 of Puligundia Palli Revenue Village, Talupula Mandal Presently Sri Sathya Sai District pending disposal of the Writ Petition and pass lA NO: 1 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 grant leave of this Hon’ble court to file the counter affidavit in the above Writ Petition in the equity of justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.S KRISHNA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR HOME 2.GP FOR REVENUE 3.VNITESH The Court made the folloNwing: ORDER Heard Sri Seelam Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri B.V.Satyanarayana, learned Assistant Government for the respondents 1 to 5, Sri P.Ajay Babu, learned and Sri V.Nitesh, learned Pleader for Revenue Assistant Government Pleader for Home counsel for the respondents 7, 9 and 10. has been filed impugning the proceedings respondent-Tahsildar vide Rg.A/207/2020, dated 24.06.2024, respondent-Sub Inspector of Police, Talupula Police provide police protection to the legal representatives of Burusu Venkataswamy, arrayed as respondents 7,9 and 10 herein, as illegal, arbitrary and beyond jurisdiction. The above writ petition 2. of the 5 requesting the 6 Station to counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner Learned filed suit O.S.No.162 of 2018 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, and Burusu Ramanjaneyulu, 3. Kadiri, against Burusu Krishnappa seeking perpetual injunction. Along with respondents 9 and 10 herein the suit, I.A.No.366 of 2018 under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC has been filed for the grant of an ad-interim injunction. He would also submit that the Civil Cpurt granted an ad-interim injunction, and the same is extent of Ac.3.49 operating as of today. The property in the suit is an of Puligundlapalle village, Talupula Mandal. He cents in S.No.462-2 would submit that the respondents 7 to 10 filed suit O.S.No.169 of 2018 of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kadiri, against the petitioner, order of stetus quo was granted in on the file seeking perpetual injunction and an the said suit. He 2018 did not disclose the pendency of O.S.No.162 of 2018 on the file of would also submit that the plaintiffs in O.S.No.169 of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kadiri though the challenge is to Ex.P1 respondent-Tahsildar to the 6 of Police, Talupula Police Station as well as In the present writ petition proceedings issued by the 5' respondent-Sub Inspector 4. the proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer vide R.Dis.No.122/2019/E2, dated 21.01.2020 (Ex.P4), learned counsel for the petitioner confined his argument regarding the validity of Ex.PI proceedings, since a revision was already filed against Ex.P4 proceedings before the 3'^^ respondent-Joint Collector, Anantapuramu. 5. Sri V.Nitesh, learned counsel for the unofficial respondents, would submit that the petitioner, having filed a revision against Ex.P4 order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, cannot maintain the writ petition. Grant of police protection at the instance of Tahsildar/RDO was considered by the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Sake Chandrayudu Vs. State of A.P. rep. by its PrI. Secretary, Revenue Department and others' and also in T.Mallikarjuna and others Vs. State of A.P., rep. by its District Collector, Chittoor and others^ 6. Since the learned counsel for the petitioner confined to the relief in respect of Ex.PI proceedings issued by the Tahsildar requesting the Sub Inspector of Police, Talupula Police Station, to give police aid, the said issue is no longer res Integra. In Sake Chandrayudu’s case and in T.Mallikarjuna’s case, it was concluded that the revenue authorities cannot direct the police department to give aid to one party or the other, except in exceptional cases wherein the Court directs implementation of orders of injunction. 7. Given the ratio laid down in the aforementioned judgments, this Court is of the considered opinion that the proceedings of the 5 respondent-Tahsildar vide Rc.A/207/2020, dated 24.06.2024 (Ex.PI) is 8. th 2015 (5) ALT 308 (S.B.) 2014(3) AI.T 757 (S.B.) without jurisdiction and accordingly, it is set aside. It is made clear that this order will not preclude either the petitioner or unofficial respondents from availing remedies before the appropriate forum. 9. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed to the extent indicated. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- m. SRINIV.AS ASSISTANT REGiSTRAR //TRUE COPY// section officer To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, A.P Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati 2. The District Collector, Anathapuramu District, Presently Sri Sathya Sai District. Puttaparthy. 3. The Joint Collector, Anathapuramu District, Presently Sri Sathya Sai District. Puttaparthy. 4. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Puttaparthy, Anathapuramu District, . Presently Sri Sathya Sai District. 5. The Tahsildar, Talupula Mandal, Anathapuramu District, Presently Sri Sathya Sai District. 6. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Talupula Police Station, Talupula, Sri Sathya Sai District. 7. One CC to Sri S Krishna Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 8. Two CCs to GP for Home, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 9. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT One CC to Sri V Nitesh, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies 10. 11. RAM HIGH COURT DATED:28/07/2025 ORDER WP.NO. 19400 OF 2024 of anohS S' S 11 SEP 2025 f Current Section ^ ALLOWING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS