1 ts & APHC010469562022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) Si: TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 29624 OF 2022 Between: Polamreddy Dasaratha Rami Reddy, S/o Krishna Reddy, Aged Vice-Chairman Rayachoty Municipality, R/o. Door No.37/69, S.N.Colony Rayachoty Town and Mandal, Annamayya District 57 years, Occ: ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravati District. 2. The Tahsildar, Rayachoty Mandal, Annamayya District. 3. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Rayachoty (U/s) Police Rayachoty, Annamayya District. 4. Madem Adi Narayana Reddy, S/o.Late M.Gangi Reddy, Aged about 64 years, N.G.O.Colony, Rayachoty Town and Mandal, Annamayya District. Guntur Station, ...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, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Letter, dated 21.08.2022 addressed by the respondent No.3 requesting the respondent No.2 to conduct the survey and submit report in respect of the land in an extent of Ac.0.50 Cents in Sy.No.553 of Rayachoty Village and Mandal, Annamayya District to get settle the title dispute in between the petitioner and the respondent No.4 that too during pendency of the Civil Suit in O.S No.21 of 2022 on the file of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Rayachoty as arbitrary, illegal, quite contrary to the procedure envisaged under the provisions the Andhra Pradesh Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923, BSO 34-A of the Board of Revenue Standing Orders, the Circular in RC.No.N1/6543/99, dated 25.07.2001 and also the well established principles apart from being violative of the fundamental and Constitutional rights guaranteed to the petitioner under Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same. Prayer is amended in Writ Petition and Affidavit as per the Order of the Court dated 27.06.2025 vide order passed in I.A.No.1 of 2024 lA NO: 1 OF 2022 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 grant further stay of all further proceedings in pursuance of the Letter, dated 21.08.2022 addressed by the respondent No.3, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition. lA NO: 2 OF 2022 Between: Polamreddy Dasaratha Rami Reddy, S/o Krishna Reddy, Aged 57 years, Occ: Vice-Chairman Rayachoty Municipality, R/o. Door No.37/69, S.N.Colony. Rayachoty Town and Mandal, Annamayya District ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. The Tahsildar, Rayachoty Mandal, Annamayya District. 3. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Rayachoty (U/s) Police Station, Rayachoty, Annamayya District. 4. Madem Adi Narayana Reddy, S/o.Late M.Gangi Reddy, Aged about 64 years, N.G.O.Colony, Rayachoty Town and Mandal, Annamayya District. ...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 Order dt.14-09-2022 granted in IA.No.01/2022 in WP.No.29624/2022. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI V R REDDY KOWURI Counsel for the Respondent No.3: GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI A SYAM SUNDAR REDDY The Court made the following order: <1^ APHC010469562022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3505] TUESDAY,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 29624/2022 Between: 1.POLAMREDDY DASARATHA RAMI REDDY, , S/0 KRISHNA REDDY, AGED 57 YEARS, OCC VICE-CHAIRMAN RAYACHOTY MUNICIPALITY, RIO. DOOR NO.37/69, S.N.COLONY, RAYACHOTY TOWN AND MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP., BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2.THE TAHSILDAR, RAYACHOTY MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. 3.THE SUBINSPECTOR OF POLICE, RAYACHOTY (U/S) POLICE STATION, RAYACHOTY, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. 4.MADEM ADI NARAYANA REDDY, S/0. LATE M.GANGI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, N.G.O.COLONY, RAYACHOTY TOWN AND MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 topleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or 2 direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Letter, dated 21.08.2022 addressed by the respondent No.3 requesting the respondent No.2 to conduct the survey and submit report in respect of the land in an extent of Ac.0.55 Cents in Sy.No.553 of Rayachoty Village and Mandal, Annamayya District to get settle the title dispute in between the petitioner and the respondent No.4 that too during pendency of the Civil Suit in O.S No.21 of 2022 on the file of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Rayachoty as arbitrary, illegal, quite contrary to the procedure envisaged under the provisions the Andhra Pradesh Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923, BSO 34-A of the Board of Revenue Standing Orders, the Circular in RC.No.N1/6543/99, dated 25.07.2001 and also the well established principles apart from being violative of the fundamental and Constitutional rights guaranteed to the petitioner under Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same and such order or orders fit and proper and circumstance of the case. Prayer is amended as per the Order of the Court dated 27.06.2025 vide order passed in I.A.No.1 of 20224 lA NO: 1 OF 2022 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 grant further stay of all further proceedings in pursuance of the Letter, dated 21.08.2022 addressed by the respondent No.3, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and pass lA NO: 2 OF 2022 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 vacate the Interim Order dt. 14-09-2022 granted in IA.No.01/2022 in WP.No.29624/2022 and pass 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 may be pleased to permit the petitioner to amend the extent of the land and survey number as Ac.0.50 cents in Sy.No.553 of Rayachoty Village & Mandal, Annamayya District instead of Ac. 0.58 3 cents in Sy.No.533 in the body of the affidavit as well as in relief portion in W.P.No.29624 of 2022 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.VR REDDY KOWURI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR HOME 2.GPFOR REVENUE 3. A SYAM SUNDAR REDDY 4 The Court made the following order: It is the case of the petitioner that, he is the absolute owner of land admeasuring an extent of Ac.2.71 cents in Sy.No.553 of Rayachoty Village and Mandal, Annamayya District. He further claims that, he has inherited the same from his ancestors. In recognition of the same, the 2"^ respondent mutated his name in revenue records and issued pattadar passbooks and title deeds in respect of the said land. It is further case of the petitioner that, he constructed a function hall in the said land and laid approach road from Kadapa-Chittoo r National Highway to reach the said function hall. It is further stated that, the 4*^ respondent filed suit in OS No.21 of 2022, on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Rayachoty, stating that, he has purchased an extent of Ac.0.50 cents in Sy.No.533, through registered sale deed dated 21.12.2002, from one Sri Bandi Adi Reddy and Shaik Mubarak. It is further stated that, the vendors of the 4**^ respondent in turn purchased the same from the petitioner. It is further stated that the 4*'^ respondent filed two interlocutory applications vide lA No.211 of 2022 to grant temporary injunction and lA No.508 of 2022 to appoint Advocate Commissioner to fix up the boundaries of the suit schedule property, i.e., an extent of Ac.0.50 cents in Sy.No.553, with the help of Mandal Surveyor, with reference to the documents, FMB maps etc., and to note 2. 5 down physical features of the suit schedule property by taking the work memos from all the parties concerned. 3. It is further case of the petitioner that, lA No.211 of 2022, filed for temporary injunction is pending adjudication and lA No.508 of 2022, filed to appoint Advocate Commissioner and to conduct survey dismissed by order dated 02.09.2022, by the trial court. It is further case of the petitioner that, the 4**^ respondent filed complaint before the 3'"'^ respondent stating that, the petitioner encroached into the land purchased by him and laid a cement road to approach the function hall constructed by him. The said complaint was registered in Crime No.496 of 2022 on 16.08.2022, by the 3^'^ respondent for the offences was punishable under Sections 447, 427 R/w Section 34 IPC. 4. It is further stated that, after registration of the said crime, the 3'^^ respondent addressed the impugned letter dated 21.08.2022, requesting the 2"'^ respondent to furnish certain information. For proper appreciation of the case, the contents of the said letter dated 21.08.2022, are reproduced hereunder: i. The land in Sy.No.553 with an extent of Ac.0.50 cents vide document No.3814/2006 whether belongs to complainant Sri M.Adi Narayana Reddy or not? ii. Conduct survey in Sy.No.553, pertaining to complainant and provide survey report. «e iii. Whether the accused Sri P.Dasaradharami Reddy encroached and laid cement pathway over the complainant’s land and provide detailed report. or not? 5. Questioning the said letter dated 21.08.2022 3'"^ respondent, the present writ petition is filed. addressed by the 6. On the other hand, the 4'*^ respondent filed stating that, he has purchased an extent of Ac.0.50 with specific boundaries by virtue of registered sale 18.08.2006 vide document No.3814/2006 from his vendors. counter affidavit cents in Sy.No.553 deed dated He further claims that, his vendors in turn purchased the said property from the petitioner under registered sale deed dated 21.10.2002 vide document No.5043/2002. It is further case of the 4'^ respondent that, the 2 respondent in recognition of his title and possession over the said land got mutated his name in revenue records and issued pattadar passbook and title deed bearing patta No. 1078, book No.M476144. Copies same are filed along with the counter affidavit. nd of the 7. It is further case of the 4‘^ respondent that, since the petitioner encroached into the land purchased by him, he filed a complaint against the petitioner and the same was registered in crime No.496 of 2006. It is his further case that, he filed suit in OS No.21 of 2022, on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Rayachoty, and the trial court granted temporary injunction by order dated 07.02.2022 in lA No.41 of 2022 and 7 the said order is still in force. It is further case of the 4**^ respondent that, the petitioner having knowledge about the passing of injunction order against him, suppressed the same and got interim order dated 14.09.2022 in the present writ petition by misrepresenting that, when the civil court did not grant injunction, the 4^^ respondent filed complaint before the 3'^'^ respondent against the petitioner. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that, as against order dated 02.09.2022, passed in lA No.508 of 2022, whereunder the request of the petitioner to appoint Advocate Commissioner and to conduct survey over the suit schedule property, he filed revision petition vide CRP No. 1986 of 2022 and the same is pending adjudication before the suit. It is further case of the 4‘^ respondent that, in the process of investigation in crime No.496 of 2022, the 3^^ respondent addressed the impugned letter so as to file charge sheet. It is further stated that, it is the bounden duty of the 3 respondent to verify the real controversy involved and unless the information sought for in the impugned letter is received, the investigation cannot be completed and prayed to dismiss the present writ petition. rd Heard counsel for the petitioner, counsel for the 4**^ respondent and Assistant Government Pleader for Home. 8. Perused the material available on record. 9. 8 It is not in dispute that, the 4*^ respondent filed interlocutory application vide lA No.508 of 2022, seeking to appoint Advocate Commissioner to fix up the boundaries of the subject land with the help of Mandal Surveyor. It is also not in dispute that, the said application was dismissed by order dated 02.09.2022. Questioning the said order, the 4**^ respondent preferred civil revision petition vide CRP No. 1986 of 10. 2022, which is pending adjudication before this Court. When the matter is seized by the competent civil court, and the same is also pending rd consideration before this Court in the above revision petition, the 3 respondent ought not to have addressed the impugned letter dated 21.08.2022 to the 2"^ respondent. Further, there is a separate mechanism provided to conduct survey under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923. Be that as it may, when the competent civil court dismissed application to conduct survey, the 3^'^ respondent cannot sit in appeal as against the said order and such power is not traceable under any 11. statute. Further, the parties are under obligation to abide by the orders passed by the civil court. As long as the order dated 02.09.2022 passed in lA No.508 of 2022 is not set aside, survey cannot be undertaken as against the subject land. If the same is allowed, it would amount to interference with the administration of justice. Viewed from 9 any angle, the impugned letter dated 21.08.2022, does not stand for judicial scrutiny and accordingly the same is set aside. 12. It is pertinent to mention that this Court by interim order dated 14.09.2022, directed the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner and not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner over the subject land. The said order was passed taking into consideration of the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. On perusal of the record it is clear that, the trial court by order dated 07.02.2022, granted ad interim ex-parte injunction against the petitioner herein. During the course of hearing the counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the said application is pending adjudication. 13. In view thereof, interim order granted by this Court, restraining the respondent Nos.2 & 4 from dispossessing and interfering with his possession over the subject land, is hereby vacated. The parties directed to put forth their respective claims over the land in dispute before the trial court. are 14. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated herein above. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- M. SRINIVAS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. m 2. The Tahsildar, Rayachoty Mandal, Annamayya District. 3. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Rayachoty (U/s) Rayachoty, Annamayya District. 4. One CC to Sri V R Reddy Kovvuri Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to GP for Home High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 6. Two CCs to GP for Revenue High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 7. One CC to Sri A Syam Sundar Reddy Advocate [OPUC] 8. Two CD Copies Police Station, TF «* HIGH COURT i DATED: 15/07/2025 ORDER WP NO. 29624 OF 2022 ^ 2 1 JUL 2025 ^ ^^^sgjiiTent Sectiofl^^y ALLOWING THE W.P., WITHOUT COSTS