APHC010408962025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI SATURDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA WRIT APPEAL NO: 883 OF 2025 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 12.11.2024 in W.P.No.24655 of 2020 on the file of High Court. Between: 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District 2. The Joint Collector, Chittoor Chittoor District 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupathi Chittoor District 4. The Tahsildar, Varadaiahpalem, Varadaiahpalem Mandal, Chittoor District. ... Appellants/Respondent Nos.1 to 4 in W.P. No.24655 of 2020 AND 1. M. Krishna Murthy, S/o Govinda Reddy, Aged about 49 years, Occ Agriculture, R/o Chillamathuru Village Post, Varadaiahpalem Mandal, Chittoor District 2. P Hah Babu Reddy, S/o Adikeshavalu, Aged about 36 years, Occ Agriculture, Varadaiahpalem Mandal, Chittoor District 3. P Janardhan, S/o Adeppa Reddy, Aged about 54 years, Occ Agriculture, R/o. Matterimitta Village, Chilamathuru Post ,Varadaiahpalem Mandal, Chittoor District 4. P Mallikarjun, S/o Munuswamy Reddy, Aged about 55 years, Occ Agriculture, R/o Matterimitta Village, Chilamathuru Post, Varadaiahpalem Mandal, Chittoor District. R/o. Matterimitta Village, Chilamathuru Post, ...Respondents/Writ Petitioners in W.P. No.24655 of 2020 5. The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Chittoor 6. Y. Masthan, S/o Subbaiah, Aged about 59 years 7. A Manohar, S/o Rajaiah, Aged about 57 years 8. B Kumar, S/o Adaiah, Aged about 49 years 9. K Munuswamy, S/o Kataiah, Aged about 55 years 10. K David Raj S/o Ankaiah, Aged about 38 years (Respondents 6 to 10 are R/o Chilamathuru Village and Post Varadaiahpalem Mandal Chittoor District.) ...Respondents lA NO: 2 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 suspend the operation of the order dated 12.11.2024 passed in W.P.No.24655 of 2020, pending disposal of this writ appeal. Counsel for the Petitioners: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: G R SUDHAKAR Counsel for the Respondent No.5: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS Counsel for the Respondent Nos.6 to 10:-— The Court made the following: JUDGMENT 1 APHC010408962025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3545] r SATURDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA WRIT APPEAL NO: 883/2025 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent to allow the Writ Appeal by setting aside the order dated.12.11.2024 in W.P.No.24655 of 2020 and to pass Between: 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS VELAGAPUDI AMARAVATHI GUNTUR DISTRICT 2.THE JOINT COLLECTOR,, CHITTOOR CHITTOOR DISTRICT 3.THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,, TIRUPATHI CHITTOOR DISTRICT 4.THE TAHSILDAR,, VARADAIAHPALEM VARADAIAHPALEM MANDAL CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT(S) AND 1. M KRISHNA MURTHY, S/0 GOVINDA REDDY AGED ABOUT 49 R/0 CHILLAMATHURU VILLAGE YEARS OCC AGRICULTURE POST VARADAIAHPALEM MANDAL CHITTOOR DISTRICT 2. P HARI BABU REDDY, , S/0 ADIKESHAVALU AGED ABOUT 36 R/0 MATTERIMITTA VILLAGE YEARS OCC AGRICULTURE CHILAMATHURU POST VARADAIAHPALEM MANDAL CHITTOOR DISTRICT 2 3. P JANARDHAN, S/0 ADEPPA REDDY AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS OCC AGRICULTURE R/0 CHILAMATHURU POST VARADAIAHPALEM MANDAL CHITTOOR DISTRICT tn MATTERIMITTA VILLAGE 4. P MALLIKARJUN, S/0 MUNUSWAMY REDDY AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS OCC AGRICULTURE R/0 MATTERIMITTA VILLAGE CHILAMATHURU POST VARADAIAHPALEM MANDAL CHITTOOR DISTRICT. RESPONDENTS/WRIT PETITIONERS IN W.P.NO, 24655 OF 2020 5. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT CHITTOOR ENDOWMENTS 6. Y MASTHAN, S/0 SUBBAIAH AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS 7. A MANOHAR, S/0 RAJAIAH AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS 8. B KUMAR, S/0 ADAIAH AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS 9. K MUNUSWAMY, S/0 KATAIAH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 10.K DAVID RAJ, , S/0 ANKAIAH AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS (RESPONDENTS 6 TO 10 ARE R/0 CHILAMATHURU VILLAGE AND POST VARADAIAHPALEM MANDAL CHITTOOR DISTRICT.) ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 pleased to condone the delay of 235 days and entertain the above Writ Appeal filed against the orders dt. 12.11.2024 in W.P.No.24655 of 2020 and pass lA NO: 2 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 Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1.GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent(S): 3 1.G R SUDHAKAR The Court made the following: f 4 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND & THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA WRIT APPEAL No.883 of 2025 JUDGMENTifPer Hon’ble Sri Justice Battu Devanand) This Writ Appeal is filed aggrieved by the order, dated 12.11.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.24655 of 2020. The facts leading to this appeal are herein under:- 2 Writ Petition No.24655 of 2020 is filed against the proceedings of the 2'^'^ respondent i.e., the Joint Collector, Chittoor, Chittoor District in confirming the order of the 3'^ respondent i.e., the Regional Divisional Officer, Tirupathi, Chittoor District cancelling the pattadar passbooks and title deeds of the petitioners. As per the petitioners, the lands in an extent of Ac.7.98 cents situated in various survey numbers viz.,Sy.Nos. 106/1 an extent of Ac.3.95 cents, in Sy.No.106/5 an extent of Ac.0.15 cents, in Sy.No.192/6 an extent of Ac.2.32 cents, in Sy.No.192/8 an extent of Ac.0.20 cents, in Sy.No.192/9 an extent of Ac.0.51 cents and Sy.No.104/3 an extent of Ac.0.85 cents, were owned by one Sri K. Ranga Rao and he was granted Ryotwari Patta under the provisions of Inam Abolition Act by the then Inam Deputy Tahsildar, Chittoor camp at Satyavedu vide proceedings in Tq F/531/64, dated 10.04.1964. Since then, the said Ranga Rao was in peaceful possession enjoyment of the lands as an absolute owner and possessor. Subsequently, the said Ranga Rao died leaving behind him his brother, Kalakantara Ayyavarappa, as his legal heir and he succeeded to the said property. The said Kalakantara Ayyavarappa has obtained pattadar pass books and title deeds in his name in the year 1993. Thereafter, he was in possession of the said land till 2013. After his life time, his sons namely K.Prasad and K.Sudhakar succeeded to the properties and their names were mutated in the revenue records. Subsequently, they have executed registered sale deeds in favour of the petitioners herein vide Document Nos. 2132, 2134 of 2017 dated 16.09.2016 and 11.10.2017. Since then, the petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of the said properties absolute owners. It is the case of the petitioners that they have made application for mutation of their names in the revenue records and for issuance of pattadar pass books and title deeds in their favour. The mutation was effected in the revenue records. But, pattadar passbooks were withheld in view of pending litigation. It is further contended that the unofficial Respondents Nos.6 to 10 have filed appeal under Section 5(5) of Andhra Pradesh Records of Rights (Pattadar Pass Book Act, 1971) (for short “the ROR Act”) before the 3'”'' respondent seeking to cancel the pattadar books and title deeds issued in favour of the writ petitioners. The 3"'^ respondent vide proceedings D.Dis.G/485/2018, dated 25.06.2019 allowed the appeal filed by the respondents Nos.6 to 10 and cancelled the pattadar pass books and title deeds issued in respect of the subject property and further declared the transactions that took place over the subject lands as null and void and the same are restored in the name of Satram, Thimminaidupeta, as an pass 6 rd Varadaiahpalem Mandal. Aggrieved by the order passed by the 3 nd respondent, the petitioners preferred Revision Petition before the 2 respondent. The 2'^^ respondent vide proceedings in ROC.D4/241465/2019 f dated 23.11.2020 dismissed the Revision filed by the writ petitioners. Aggrieved by the order, dated 23.11.2020 of the Respondent No.2 wherein, the order, dated 25.06.2019 has been confirmed, the petitioner has constrained to challenge the same, by filing the Writ Petition. After hearing both sides, the learned Single Judge of this Court by following the Judgment in Ratnamma \/s. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmavaram, Ananthapur District and others^ allowed the Writ Petition by order, dated 12.11.2024. 3. On perusal of the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 12.11.2024 it appears that by following the latest decision of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1140 of 2023, wherein the Judgment in Ratnamma’s case was followed and held that the proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer, in an appeal filed against the order passed under the provisions of Section 6-A of the ROR Act, are without jurisdiction, so also the order of the Revisional Authority i.e. Joint Collector, against the order of RDO passed in appeal, the learned Single Judge has set aside the order impugned in the writ petition. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, the present Writ Appeal has been filed. (2015) 5 ALT 228 (DB) 7 4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the material available on record. 5. During the course of hearing this Writ Appeal, it came to the notice of this Court that the Judgment in W.A.No.1140 of 2023 which passed following the Judgment in Ratnamma Vs. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmavaram, Ananthapur District and others, both has become final. No appeals are filed by the State against the said Judgments when the law laid down by the two Co-ordinate Division Benches of this Court have become final on this aspect, filing Writ Appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge is contrary to the settled law. Even was . As and on merits also, in our considered opinion there are no legal valid grounds to entertain this Writ Appeal. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, in our considered view, the appeal iIS liable to be dismissed. 7. Accordingly,, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- K TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTIO^^FFICER To, 1- One CC to Sri G. R. Sudhakar, Advocate [OPUC] 2. Two CCS to GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] .co;:;" --- Ssb HIGH COURT DATED:30/08/2025 JUDGMENT WA No. 883 OF 2025 DISMISSING THE W.A. WITHOUT COSTS