APHC010010612020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY ,THE NINTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 842/2020 Between: G.venkatappaiah, The Tahsildar and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. THOTA RAMAKOTESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE (AP) The Court made the following: ORDER: Heard the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondents. 2. Challenging the proceedings of the Tahsildar, dated 03.01.2020 issued under Section 6 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905, the presen IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY ,THE NINTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 842/2020 ...PETITIONER AND ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: THOTA RAMAKOTESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): GP FOR REVENUE (AP) The Court made the following: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondents. Challenging the proceedings of the Tahsildar, dated 03.01.2020 issued under Section 6 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905, the present writ petition is filed. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3458] THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT(S) and the learned Challenging the proceedings of the Tahsildar, dated 03.01.2020 issued under Section 6 of the Andhra Pradesh Land 2 3. It is contended that the petitioner was assigned land in D-Form Patta, in 1990, in respect of the subject property and since then, he has been in occupation and enjoyment of the same. In due recognition, of the title and possession of the petitioner over the subject lands, it is stated that the Revenue officials has also issued the Pattadar passbooks and title deeds. The petitioner has mortgaged the subject property and obtained crop loan. He thus, contends that the proceedings issued under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act are without jurisdiction because he cannot be termed as an unauthorized occupant when his authorization was pursuant to the assignment made in his favour. 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue darwing the attention of the counter-affidavit of the 1st respondent contends that the Patta said to have been issued to the petitioner does not appeared to be genuine one in as much as, as verified from the proceedings of issuance of Patta does not contain the FDis.No., and DK No., and the same raises a doubt regarding the genuineness of the Patta. As per the RSR, the subject land has not been assigned. The classification of the land was also changed from ‘Kunta Poramboke land’ to ‘AWD land’ vide proceedings in Rc.No.34/1928 (1338 Fasli), dated 01.09.1928 and is enlisted in the list of properties of prohibited properties. The Learned Assistant Government Pleader thus contends that, since, the Patta is not issued from the office of 3 the Mandal Revenue Office, the petitioner cannot seek any indulgence of this Court. He thus, prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. Considered the rival submissions. It appears from the record that the petitioner has approached the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, at Hyderabad by way of a writ petition in W.P.No.8226 of 2012. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order, dated 26.03.2012 directing the respondents therein not to insist for submission of No Objection Certificate from the Revenue authorities, if the petitioner submits any documents for transfer of the subject property. However, since the property was enlisted in the list of prohibited properties, the petitioner did not submit any document for transfer of the land. 6. This Court prima facie is of the view that the petitioner's occupation of the subject land cannot be said to be unauthorized to attract the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act since Patta said to have been granted in favour of the petitioner is in operation. Having regard to the statement made by the 1st respondent in the counter-affidavit that DK Patta is not issued from their office, the liberty is granted to the 1st respondent to conduct appropriate enquiry if it feels appropriate that the Patta has to be cancelled, having regard to the statement made in the counter affidavit that it was not issued by the revenue department. 7. The writ petition is allowed. However, the respondents are granted liberty to proceed in accordance with law, if the petitioner’s D Patta 4 is found to be unauthorized one, after affording sufficient opportunity to the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed. ______________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA Date: 09.01.2025 MSI 5 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 842/2020 Date: 09.01.2025 MSI