IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH::AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 20859 OF 2011 Between: N. Shashi Kumar Reddy, S/o. Malakonda Reddy Havaldar 51 Engineer Regiment, C/o.56 APO, Chandigad, R/o. K. Kottala, Kasinayana Mandal Y.S.R. district ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of A.P., Rep. by its District Collector, Kadapa, Y.S.R. District 2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajampet, Y.S.R. District 3. The Tahsildar, Porumammilla Mandal, Y.S.R. District 4. Shaik Sayed Peera, S/o.Shaik Sayed Peera, Ex-Military Man, R/o.Uddikatta Street, Porumamilla Village & Mandal, Y.S.R. 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 or in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.3 in interfering with the petitioner rights over the land in an extant of Ac.1.85 cents in Sy.No.1274/13 of Rangasamudram village, Porumammilla Mandal, Y.S.R. District at the instance of the respondent No.4 as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the settled principles of the legal position apart from being violative of fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioner under Articles 14, 21 of the constitution of India and Consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the petitioner rights over the subject land in an extant of Ac. 1.85 Cents in Sy.No,.1274/13 of Rangasamudram village, porumammilla Mandal'Y.S.R. District I.A. NO: 1 OF 2011tWPMP. NO: 25345 OF 2011) 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 direct the respondents not to interfere with the petitioner rights over the land in an extant of Ac. 1.85 cents in Sy.No. 1274/13 of Rangasamudram village, Porumammilla Mandal, Y.S.R. District pendig disposal of the above W.P. n I.A. NO: 1 OF 2012fWVMP. NO: 3357 OF 2012) Between: Shaik Sayed Peera, S/o.Shaik Sayed Peera, Ex-Military Man, R/o.Uddikatta Street, Porumamilla Village & Mandal, Y.S.R. District ...Petitioner/Respondent No.4 AND 1. N. Shashi Kumar Reddy ...Respondent/Petitioner 2. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its District Collector, Kadapa Y.S.R District 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajampet, Y.S.R District 4. The Tahsildar, Porumammilla Mandal, Y.S.R District 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 vacate the interim orders dated 25-07-2011 W.P.M.P.No.25345 of 2011 in W.P. No. 20859 of 2011 in the interest of justice made in Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI T VIJAY HANUMAN SINGH ^^Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 3: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.4: M/S. JAGARLAMUDI KOTESWARI DEVI The Court made the following; Order APHC010400372011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] r.* - THURSDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSANDAND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 20859/2011 Between: N. Shashi Kumar Reddy ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of A. R, & Ors. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1 .T VIJAY HANUMAN SINGH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR REVENUE 2.JAGARLAMUDI KOTESWARI DEVI ...RESPONDENT(S) The Court made the following: ORDER: The present writ petition is filed questioning the action of the 3'"'^ respondent at the instance of the respondent in interfering with the petitioner rights over the land in an extent of Ac.1.85 cents in Survey f iWill 2 CGR, J. W.P. No.20859 of 2011 No.1274/13 of Rangasamudram village, Porumamilla Mandal, YSR Kadapa District, as arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional. i 2. The petitioner then being serving soldier was assigned land in an extent of Ac. 1.85 cents in Survey No. 1274/13 of Rangasamudram village, Porumammilla Mandal, by granting D-Form Patta No.DKT/34/1418, dated 09.01.2009. The petitioner has been cultivating the said land as per the said assignment and was also issued pattadar pass book and title deed. 3. The 3'^'^ respondent tried to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner at the instance of the 4*^ respondent. On enquiry it revealed that the 4'^ respondent also claimed that the subject land was assigned in his favour, which was resisted by the petitioner. When he insisted the respondents 3 and 4 to produce the alleged assignment, proceedings in Form-1 were produced, which is filed as Annexure-lll. The said Form-1 is not properly dated and it only refers to the issuance month and year i.e. December, 2009. Further, the respondent has also addressed a letter, dated 14.04.2011 to the 2"^ respondent Revenue Divisional Officer by intimating that thought the subject land has been assigned in favour of the petitioner, the same was again re-assigned in favour of the 4**^ respondent under 3 CGR, J. W.P. No,20859 of 2011 ex-serviceman quota and as both the petitioner as well as the 4‘^ respondent are now granted pattas to the same extent of land, he requested to take action in this matter. As the petitioner was threatened with dispossession, the present writ petition came to be filed. 4. While issuing notice before admission, this Court has passed interim order on 25.07.2011, which reads as under; “In the light of the documentary evidence produced by the petitioner, evidencing the assignment of and his possession over the subject land, there shall be a direction to the respondent authorities not to interfere with his possession over the same except in accordance with the due procedure laid down by law.” 5. The respondents 1 to 3 have not filed counter-affidavit, however, the instructions, dated 19.11.2024, addressed by the 3'^^ respondent Tahsildar to the learned Government Pleader for Revenue are placed on record. 6. The said instructions state that the petitioner, serving soldier then, was assigned government land in Survey No. 1274/13 admeasuring Ac.1.85 cents vide DKT No.34/1418, dated 09.01.2009 .and, subsequently, passbook and title deed were issued, basing on which, he is in possession and enjoyment of the same. Likewise, f T 4 CGR, J. W.P. No.20859 of 2011 % upon the request of the 4*^ respondent for assignment of patta for the land admeasuring Ac.1.85 cents in Survey No.1274/13 i.e., the same subject land, under ex-serviceman quota, on the recommendation of the M.R.I. and the V.R.O., patta was granted in his favour vide DKT No.30/1419, dated 29.06.2009. Therefore, the subject land was assigned twice in favour of the petitioner as serving soldier and the 4*^ respondent as ex-serviceman. It is further stated that on verification of the records and the connected D.K.T. files, it is found that the second application made by the 4‘^ respondent was in suppression of the assignment already made in his favour with respect to land admeasuring Ac.3.50 cents in Survey No.1015/B, and further that the M.R.I. and theV.R.O., who processed the request and recorded the statement of 4^^ respondent, have also not verified the aspect of granting assignment in favour of the petitioner for the very same land, which resulted in irregular assignment. The instructions further stated that the officers responsible for making such irregular assignment i.e M.R.I. and V.R.O. have been subjected to disciplinary action and as the second assignment made in favour of the 4‘^ respondent found to be an irregular one, necessary action has been proposed in that regard. 5 CGR, J. W.P. No.20859of 2011 7. The 4'*^ respondent filed counter-affidavit contending that he being an ex-serviceman, under ‘the scheme of agricultural land to ex- servicemen’ applied for assignment of agricultural land and his request has been accepted whereby initially an extent of Ac.3.50 cents covered by Survey No.1015-B was assigned and later further an extent of Ac. 1.85 cents in Survey No. 1274/13 of Ranga Samudram village, Porumamilla Mandal, was assigned. It is further stated that the assignments were made strictly following the procedure prescribed upon verification and inspection of the lands by the revenue authorities. The 4‘^ respondent had come to know that the land admeasuring Ac.1.85 cents has been assigned in favour of the petitioner which was in collusion with the then V.R.O.-II and further that the petitioner was never in possession and enjoyment of the same. As the patta has been granted to him strictly in accordance with law, his patta alone requires to be considered as valid and not that of the petitioner, which was obtained in collusion by playing fraud and therefore, prays to dismiss the writ petition. 8. Heard Sri TVijay Hanuman Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner: learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondents 1 to 3; and Sri T. Ramesh Babu, learned CGR, J. W.P No.20859 of 2011 s counsel, representing SmtJagarlamudi Koteswari Devi, learned counsel for the 4'^ respondent. 9. Perused the record. 10. The undisputed facts are that the petitioner at the relevant point of time was in service in the Army and the 4'*^ respondent ex-serviceman and both were entitled to claim the assignment of land in terms of the scheme formulated by the government granting benefit of assignment of land as a welfare measure. The petitioner, a serving soldier, was assigned government land admeasuring Ac. 1.85 cents in Survey No. 1274/13 of Ranga Samudram village under D.K.T.34/1418, dated 09.01.2009, and basing on the same, pattadar passbook and title deed were issued. Subsequently, at the request of the 4‘^ respondent, the very same land was again assigned and granted patta in his favour under D.K.T.No.30/1419, dated 29.06.2009. The sequence of events would indicate that though initial assignment was made on 09.01.2009 in favour of the petitioner, without cancelling and resuming the land already assigned, it was once again assigned in favour of the 4*^^ respondent on 29.06.2009. Though in the instructions placed on record, the 3^'^ respondent has stated that the second assignment made in favour of the 4'^ was an as '• # 7 CGR, J. W.P. No.20859 of 2011 respondent was in suppression of the assignment already made in his favour with respect to an extent of Ac.3.50 cents in Survey NO.1015-B and that the then officers i.e., M.R.I. and V.R.O. without proper verification of records processed the request and recommended for the assignment, this Court is not entering into the aspect of process and procedure adopted for granting second assignment as the record and facts clearly indicate that the second assignment was made subsisting the first assignment, and without cancelling the first assignment made in favour of the petitioner, no fresh assignment could have been made. This Court is satisfied that ) / ) } the assignment made in favour of the petitioner holds good and is I valid and no credence can be given to the subsequent assignment made in favour of the 4*^ respondent. This Court is not expressing any opinion on the contention raised by the 4^*^ respondent that he is entitled to the balance extent of land, as the assignment made in his favour was less than five acres and the 4*^ respondent is at liberty to take steps for making any application in that regard. 11. The prayer in the writ petition is confined only to the interference of the respondents 3 and 4 with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the land admeasuring Ac. 1.85 cents in Survey No.1274/13 of Rangasamudram village, Porumamilla p ipi 8 CGR, J. W.P. No.20859 of 2011 Mandal, subsisting the assignment in his favour. Having regard to the above finding, when the petitioner’s assignment is very much valid and in force, the respondents, particularly the 4*'' respondent, have no manner of right to interfere with the same. 12. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending consideration, if any, in this case shall stand closed. Dhiraj^sln^h Tha^ku^^TheThief^J ^ witness the Hon’ble Sri January, Thirtieth Day of I Sd/- K TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR ^^^CTI^^OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, 1. The District Collector, State of A.P., 2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kadapa, Y.S.R. District Rajampet, Y.S.R. District Y.S.R. District SINGH Advocate [OPUC] High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] i Koteswari Devi, Advocate [OPUC] 3. The Tahsildar, Porumammilla Mandal, 4. One CC to SRI T VIJAY HANUMAN 5. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, 6. One CC to M/s. Jagarlamudi 7. Three CD Copies m w HiGH COURT DATED: 30/01/2025 ORDER WP.No.20859 of 2011 1 1 FEB 2025 Co, 'W ^ . Current section , ALLOWING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS