IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMAR (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 20677 OF 2024 Between: 1. Janga Karunakar Reddy, S/o. J. Prabhakar Reddy Aged about 54 years R/o. D.No.3-45, Thambi Reddygari Palli Village Elamanda, Yerravaripalem Mandal Tirupati District. 2. Janga Prabhakara Reddy, S/o. Janga Thambi Reddy Aged about 75 years R/o. D.No.3-45, Thambi Reddygari Palli Village Elamanda, Yerravaripalem Mandal Tirupati District ...Petitioners AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by the Principal Secretary Revenue Department, Secretariat Velagapudi, Guntur District. 2. The District Collector, Tirupati District Tirupati. 3. The Joint Collector, Tirupati District Tirupati. 4. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupati. 5. The Tahsildar, Tirupati Rural Mandal Tirupati. 6. Smt. C. Pushpakala, D/o. late C. Chandra Reddy R/o. D.No.2-152/1, Pathakalva Village Tirupati Rural Mandal, Tirupati. ...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 an appropriate writ, direction, order or orders, particularly in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 4th respondent in canceling the pattadar passbooks issued to the petitioners and directing altering the entries in the revenue records pertaining to Ac.0.35 Cents in Sy.No.222/4 and Ac.0.20 Cents in Sy.No.222/9 of Peruru Village, Tirupati Rural Mandal, Tirupati, as illegal. €■ Vv .pry»^ and in violation of the Principles of Natural Justice apart from in|,v};pjative of Articles 14 in^§(j0ently set aside the impugned order of the 4'*' 2l.'07.2024. ri^ •f »• f 21, and 300-A of the Constitution of India and j ♦ respondent dated K, • 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 4*^ respondents 29.07.2024. order dated Counsel for the Petitioners: M/S INDUS LAW FIRM Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following order: "IT 1 .0, APHCOI0407492024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3328] V: ■Jh THURSDAY .THE FIFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 20677/2024 Between: 1.JANGA KARUNAKAR REDDY, S/0. J. PRABHAKAR REDDY AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/0. D.NO.3-45. THAMBI REDDYGARI PALLI VILLAGE ELAMANDA, YERRAVARIPALEM MANDAL TIRUPATI DISTRICT. 2.JANGA PRABHAKARA REDDY, S/0. JANGA THAMBI REDDY AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS R/0. D.NO.3-45, THAMBI REDDYGARI PALLI VILLAGE ELAMANDA, YERRAVARIPALEM MANDAL TIRUPATI DISTRICT ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TIRUPATI DISTRICT TIRUPATI. 3.THE JOINT COLLECTOR, TIRUPATI DISTRICT TIRUPATI. 4.THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, TIRUPATI. 5.THE TAHSILDAR, TIRUPATI RURAL MANDAL TIRUPATI. 6.SMT C PUSHPAKALA, D/0. LATE C. CHANDRA REDDY R/0. D.N0.2- 152/1, PATHAKALVA VILLAGE TIRUPATI RURAL MANDAL TIRUPATI. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 2 1.M/S INDUS LAW FIRM Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following; ORDER: Heard Sri N.V. Sumanth, learned Counsel representing M/s. Indus Law Firm for the Writ Petitioners and Sri K. Arjun Chowdhary, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. The prayer sought in the present Writ Petition is as under: “For the reasons stated above, it is respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, direction, order or orders, particularly in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 4‘''respondent in canceling the pattadar passbooks issued to the petitioners and directing altering the entries in the revenue records pertaining to Ac.0.35 Cents in Sy.No.222/4 and Ac.0.20 Cents in Sy.No.222/9 Village,Tirupati Rural Mandal,Tirupati, as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of the Principles of Natural Justice apart from being violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the impugned order of the 4‘''respondent dated 29.07.2024 and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, to ensure justice and uphold the constitutional rights of the petitioners.” 2. of Peruru 3. The Writ Petitioners assail the Order dated 29.07.2024 (Ex.P.1) cancelling their Pattadhar Passbooks. Learned Counsel would submit that the Writ Petitioner No.1 purchased Ac.0.35 cents in Sy.No.222/4 vide Sale Deed bearing Document No.3260/2023 dated 14.06.2023. The second Writ Petitioner purchased Ac.0.20 cents in Sy.No.222/9 vide Sale Deed bearing Document No.7447/2023 dated 28.12.2023. He would submit that both the Writ Petitioners have purchased the subject lands from one Sri N. Gangireddy. 3 Sri N. Gangireddy was assigned Khata No.64 from the Revenue Records and transfer of title was also recorded in the Revenue Record by Respondent No.5 by Mutation Proceeding dated 19.08.2023 (Ex.P.5). The Unofficial Respondent No.6 has raised a dispute and registered a Complaint on 10.11.2023 and the Respondent No.4 has issued Order dated 29.07.2024 directing cancellation of Pattadhar Passbooks and for restoration of original entries in favour of Sri Chevi Reddy Gangi Reddy. It is submitted that while doing so, the Official Respondents have failed to consider documents such as Adangal and the Pattadhar Passbooks besides Sale Deeds. 4. In para 9 of the Affidavit, it has been specifically stated that the impugned Order was passed by the Respondent No.4 on 29.07.2024 without there being any notice to the Writ Petitioners. It is submitted that the notice relating to the hearing that was scheduled on 30.03.2024 was received by the Writ Petitioners only after 04.04.2024. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners, therefore, contend that the impugned Order has been passed behind the back of the Writ Petitioners, thereby violating the principles of Natural Justice. 5. The impugned Order would indicate that the Respondent No.4 has noticed that the Writ Petitioners and their representatives have attended the inquiry only one time out of four hearings. It is stated in the impugned Order that though sufficient opportunity has been given, the Writ Petitioners have failed to produce documentary evidence. 6. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners has taken this Court through the photocopy of the envelop received by the Writ Petitioners at pages 70 & 71. The postal stamp affixed by the Postal Authorities would itself indicate that the Notice sent by the Official Respondents was served on the Writ Petitioners only on 04.04.2024 (at page 71 of the paper book). 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to dispose of this Writ Petition, at the admission stage, without going into the merit, setting aside the impugned Order by directing the Respondent 4 Authorities to issue fresh Notices and proceed for further hearing. Accordingly, the impugned Order dated 29.07.2024 (Ex.P.1) is set aside on the ground of non-adherence to the principles of Natural Justice. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything on merit. However, the Respondent Authorities are at liberty to issue fresh Notices and that such Notices are received by the Writ Petitioners well before the date that is fixed for final hearing. Needless to state that the Respondent Authorities are obligated to adhere to the principles of Natural Justice at every stage during the proceedings and pass a Speaking Order in accordance with law and communicate a copy of such Order to the Writ Petitioners and other interested parties forthwith. Writ Petitioners are directed to submit a copy of this Order to the Official Respondents including the Respondent No.4 within three weeks from today for effective compliance. With these observations and directions, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. 8. ensure 9. 10. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. Sd/- K. SRINIVASA RAJU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 11. //TRUE COPY// SEC™fTOFRCER To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Velagapudi, Guntur District. The District Collector, Tirupati District Tirupati. The Joint Collector, Tirupati District Tirupati. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupati. The Tahsildar, Tirupati Rural Mandal Tirupati. One CC to M/s Indus Law Firm, Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] Two CD Copies 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. RAM HIGH COURT DATED:05/06/2025 ORDER WP.No.20677 of 2024 X 18 JUN 20K S ^ Curtent Senion ^ *// DISPOSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS