APHC010398462025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3529] TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT APPEAL NO: 907/2025 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent to present this Memorandum of Writ Appeal against the Learned Single Judge Order dated 11.07.2025 in W.P No. 17538 of 2025 for the following, among other grounds Between: 1. A KONDAREDDY, S/O. A RAVINDRA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, R/O.D.NO.1-136, REGATIPALLI VILLAGE, DHARMAVARAMMANDAL, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT, ANANTAPUR. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, DHARMAVARAM, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, DHARMAVARAMMANDAL, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): IA NO: 1 OF 2025 2 RRR, J & TCDS, J W.A.No.907 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 pleased to suspend the proceedings issued by the 4th respondent vide Rc. No. 142/2025/A dated 10.06.2025, pending disposal of the Writ Appeal and pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. K NARSI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 3 RRR, J & TCDS, J W.A.No.907 of 2025 The Court made the following Judgment: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) Heard Sri K. Narsi Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, appearing for the respondents. 2. The appellant herein claims ownership and possession of Ac.4.65 cents of land in Sy.No.384-2 of Regatipalli Village, Dharmavaram Mandal, Ananthapur District. The appellant claims that this land had been assigned to him under a D-Form patta, vide proceedings, dated 30.12.2013. 3. The 4th respondent had issued a notice, dated 05.04.2025, calling upon the appellant to show-cause why the land should not be resumed. Similar show-cause notices are said to have been issued to 52 other persons, who are in occupation of the land adjoining the land of the appellant. Some of the persons, to whom notices had been issued, had filed their representations before the 4th respondent. Similarly, the appellant herein had also filed his representation before the 4th respondent. After receipt of this objection, the 4th respondent is said to have rejected the explanation given by all these persons and had directed resumption of land by separate orders. 4. The appellant herein, who had been served with the said order, dated 10.06.2025, had approached this Court, by way of W.P.No.17538 of 2025. A learned Single Judge of this Court, by an order, dated 11.07.2025, 4 RRR, J & TCDS, J W.A.No.907 of 2025 had disposed of the said Writ Petition, leaving it open to the appellant to avail of remedy of appeal available under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977. Aggrieved by this order, the appellant has approached this Court, by way of the present Writ Appeal. 5. Sri K. Narsi Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant would contend that 26 other prsons, who were similarly affected, had approached this Court, by way of various Writ Petitions. He submits that all these Writ Petitions were allowed by the learned Single Judge and the matters were remanded back to the 4th respondent for issuing fresh notice, setting out the irregularities and the alleged illegalities, raised against the persons to whom such notices were being issued and to enable the said persons to give a proper explanation. 6. The learned counsel woud contend that it would only be appropriate that the same relief is granted to the appellant and the matter is remanded back to the 4th responent. 7. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue would contend that it would be the discretion of the learned Single Judge to either take up the matter or to relegate the appellant to the alternative remedy available under the Statute. He would submit that the orders passed by the learned Single Judge, setting aside the impugned orders and remanding the 5 RRR, J & TCDS, J W.A.No.907 of 2025 matter back to the 4th respondent, would not in any manner affect the exercise of discretion by the learned Single Judge in the present case. 8. A perusal of the order, dated 11.07.2025 in W.P.No.17538 of 2025 shows that, the learned Single Judge, while considering the challenge to the other orders of the 4th respondent, dated 10.06.2025, had taken the view that the proceedings had not been initiated properly and that the provisions of natural justice are required to be followed. 9. Though, the contention of the learned Assistant Government Pleader, merits consideraton, we are of the opinion that it would be appropriate to dispose of this Writ Appeal, by setting aside the order of the 4th respondent, dated 10.06.2025 and remanding the matter back to the 4th respondent, in terms of the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 11.07.2025 in W.P.No.17538 of 2025. 10. This course is being taken only for the purpose of ensuring uniformity of decision making in as much as 26 other affected persons have been relegated back to the 4th respondent, while the present appellant would have to go before the Appellate Authority and it would be appropriate that all cases are considered by the same Authority, before any decision is taken. 11. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 6 RRR, J & TCDS, J W.A.No.907 of 2025 As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any shall stand closed. ________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J _______________ T.C.D.SEKHAR, J Date: 02.09.2025 MJA 7 RRR, J & TCDS, J W.A.No.907 of 2025 262 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR WRIT APPEAL No:907 of 2025 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) 02.09.2025 MJA