IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA WRIT PETITION NO: 7779 OF 2016 Between: Y. Jakob, S/o. Chinna John, Age 65 years, Occ; Agricultural, Bonchanpalli Village, Dalitvada, Mydukur Mandalv-YSR Kadapa District. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2. The District Collector, YSR Kadapa District. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Jammalamadugu, YSR Kadapa District. 4. The Tahsildar, Mydukur Mandal, YSR Kadapa District. 5. Y. Rubenu, S/o. Chinna John 6. Y. Daveedu, S/o. Chinna John, 7. Y. Ramanaiah, S/o. Chinna John, (R5 to R7 are residing at Bonchanpalli Village, Dalitavada, Mydukur Mandal, YSR Kadapa 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 one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in passing orders vide Ref.A(2)/564/2015, dated 25-01-2016 is illegal, arbitrary and violation of Principles of Natural Justice, consequently, set aside the same, forth with. ‘. LA. NO: 10F 2016(WVMP. NO: 1989 OF 2016) Between: 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2. The District Collector, YSR Kadapa District. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Jammalamadugu, YSR Kadapa District. 4. The Tahsildar, Mydukur Mandal, YSR Kadapa District. ...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS AND 1. Y. Jakob, S/o. Chinna John, Age 65 years, Occ: Agricultural Bonchanpalli Village, Dalitvada, Mydukur Mandal, YSR Kadapa District. ...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER 2. Y. Rubenu, S/o. Chinna John, R/o. Bonchanpalli Village, Dalitavada, Mydukur Mandal, YSR Kadapa District 3. Y. Daveedu, S/o. Chinna John, R/o. Bonchanpalli Village, Dalitavada, Mydukur Mandal, YSR Kadapa District 4. Y. Ramanaiah, S/o. Chinna John, R/o. Bonchanpalli Village, Dalitavada, Mydukur Mandal, YSR Kadapa District. ...RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS 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 vacate the interim orders granted in WPMP No. 9893 of 2016 in . WP No. 7779 of 2016, dated; 10-03-2016 and dismiss the writ petition. I.A. NO: 2 OF 2016(WPMP. NO: 9893 OF 2016) 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 orders of the 3 rd respondent in his Ref.A(2)/564/2015, dated 25-01-2016, pending disposal of the main writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 5 to 7: SRI V NITESH Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER 1 NJS, J WP_7779_2016 . APHC010472022024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3209] FRIDAY,THE NINETH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA WRIT PETITION No: 7779 of 201 fi t Between: Y.Jakob ...PETITIONER AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: I.Mr.K.Srinivas Counsel for the Re§pondent(S): 1.G.P. for Revenue 2.G.P. for Assignment S.Mr.V.Nitesh ...RESPONDENT(S) t NJS, J WP 7779_2016 2 The Court made the following Order; Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondents 1 to 4 and the learned counsel for the respondents 5 to 7. 2. The learned CQunsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that an extent of Ac.2.49 cents and Ac.2.50 cents i.e., Ac.4.99 cents in Survey No.604/3 situated in Vanipenta Village was assigned to the petitioner vide D Form Patta, DKT 4/97, dated 12.08.1987 and the Revenue authorities issued Pattadar Pass Book and Title Deed in respect of the same. He submits that the petitioner, by virtue of the assignment, was inducted into possession and cultivating the said extent of land for the past 2 Vi decades. He submits that as the unofficial respondents, who are none other than the brothers of the petitioner were creating problems and raising disputes with reference to the subject matter land,/the petitioner approached the 3'^'^ respondent by making an appeal petition under Section 5 (5) of the A.P.Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act’) to settle the dispute among the brothers. He submits that the 3'^'^ respondent issued notices to the unofficial . respondents, however instead of conducting a thorough enquiry into the matter as required under the provisions of the Act, surprisingly on the basis of the report submitted by the 4‘^ respondent, issued the impugned proceedings by reducing an extent of Ac.0.20 cents and directed the 4**^ respondent to revise the survey numbers and the extent mentioned in the DKT pattas, which were issued in the year 1987 inter alia on the premise that during the survey NJSJ WP 7779 2016 conducted by the 4*^^ respondent-Tahsildar, the petitioner is in actual possession and enjoyment of an extent of Ac.4.79 cents in Survey No.604/6. He submits that the reduction of the extent of land assigned to the petitioner ' from Ac.4.99 cents to Ac.4.79 cents is unjust, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice. As such, he contends that the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 3. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader made submissions with reference to the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.4 and the material filed along with the same. He inter alia submitted that there is no dispute that certain extent of land was assigned to the petitioner by the Government. However, it is an undisputed fact that along with the petitioner, his brothers / unofficial respondents were also assigned land by the Government. He submits that as stated in the counter-affidavit, the petitioner and unofficial respondents were cultivating the lands, as per their convenience. He also submits that in view of the dispute raised by the I petitioner, as per the directions of the 3'^^ respondent, a survey was conducted by the 4^^ respondent along with the Mandal Surveyor and it came to light that the petitioner and his brothers are in possession and enjoyment of lands in different survey numbers other than the lands which were assigned to them. Referring to the extracts of the Register filed along with the material papers, he submits that as per the assigned lands list of the Sub-Registrar, Mydukur, the writ petitioner was assigned an extent of Ac.2.49 cents and Ac. 1.50 cents in Survey No.604/2 and Survey No.604/3 i.e., an extent of Ac.3.99 cents in all 4 NJS,J WP 7779_2016 whereas during the survey, it was found that the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of an extent of Ac.4.79 cents in Survey No.604/6. Likewise, the unofficial respondent No.5 was found in possession and enjoyment of an extent of Ac.3.50 cents in Survey No.604/5 as against an extent of Ac. 1.49 cents and Ac.2.51 cents in Survey Nos.604/5 and 604/6, the 6‘^ respondent in an extent of Ac.3.50 cents in Survey No.604/7 as against Ac.2.49 cents and Ac. 1.50 cents in Survey No.604/1 and 604/4 and the 7‘^ respondent in an extent of Ac.3.50 cents in Survey No.604/4 as against Ac.2.50 cents and Ac. 1.50 cents in Survey Nos.604/8 and 604/9 assigned to him. He submits that under the said circumstances, the Revenue Divisional Officer, basing on the report of the 4‘^ respondent, directed the revision of survey numbers and extent mentioned in the DKT pattas as per the enjoyment of the respective assignees i.e., the petitioner and his brothers and to carry out the corrections in the revenue records accordingly. He submits that by virtue of the proceedings impugned in the writ petition, in a way, the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner and his brothers was regularized and in fact, there was reduction in the extent of lands in respect of all the parties. He also submits that if at all, the petitioner has any grievance against the impugned proceedings, he should have carried the matter by way of an appeal to the Joint Collector and the writ petition as filed is not maintainable. Making the said submissions, the learned Assistant Government Pleader urges for dismissal of the writ petition. 5 NJSJ WP_7779_2016. 4. The learned counsel for the unofficial respondents supported the arguments of the learned Assistant Government Pleader and contends that the orders of the respondent, in the facts and circumstances of the case cannot be found fault with. 5. This Court has considered the submissions made and perused the material on record. 6. At the outset, it may be appropriate to note that in'the DKT patta dated 12.08.1987 Ex.P3, the extent of land assigned to the petitioner in Survey Nos.604/2, 604/3 was mentioned as Ac.2.49 cents and Ac.2.50 cents i.e., Ac.4.99 cents in all. Ex.P2-Pattadar Pass Book also refers to the same extent. However, in the enquiry conducted by the 4*'' respondent pursuant to the petition made by the petitioner to the 3'^^ respondent, it appears that the ’ petitioner as well as the unofficial respondents, who are none other than the brothers of the petitioner are found to be in possession and enjoyment of different extents of lands in different survey numbers, the details of which specifically stated in Para No.6 of the 4*'^ respondent’s counter-affidavit. Further, the assigned land list sent to the Sub-Registrar, Mydukur, which is filed along with the counter-affidavit refers to a lesser extent of land than that assigned to the petitioner. Though no reasons were forthcoming with reference to the difference not only in respect of the extent but also numbers, the petitioner did not choose to file reply affidavit denying the ’ averments made in the counter affidavit, let alone that are was survey no survey was conducted in the presence of the petitioner. Thus, the averments made in the 6 NJS,J WP_7779_2016 counter-affidavit of respondent No.4 remained un-rebutted and amounts to admission on the part of the petitioner. Be that as it may. 7. On a consideration of the matter in its entirety, this Court is of the view that the proceedings issued by the third respondent dated 25.01.2016 on the basis of an enquiry report by virtue of which, the possession and enjoyment of the parties to the lis was sought to be regularized, warrants no interference in a proceeding under'Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner could not make out a statutory provisions. case of violation of principles of natural justice or 8. In such view of the matter, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications stand closed. if any, shall Sd/- K. TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR / //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. One CC to Sri K Srinivas, Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to Sri V Nitesh, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CCs to GP for Assignment, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 4. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 5. Three CD Copies TF HIGH COURT DATED:09/05/2025 ORDER WP.No.7779 of 2016 •■S’.N i 3Z Oi 0 9 JUN 2025 rsil DISMISSING THE W.P., WITHOUT COSTS