r IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE ^ PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 41097 OF 2022 Between: 1. Valmiki Kristappa, aged 51 yrs S/o Late Anjineyulu, R/o Boodagavi Village Uravakonda Mandal, Anantapuramu (D) 2. Valmiki Raja Dushyant, aged 26 yrs S/o Valmiki Seenappa, R/o D.No. 12-1-49 Panduranga Temple Street, Uravakonda Anantapuramu District. 3. Degulapadu Samrat, aged 34 yrs S/o Degulapadu Govindappa r/o Boodagavi Village, Uravakonda Mandal, Anantapuramu District 4. Valmiki Raja Yaswanth, aged 22 yrs S/o Valmiki Seenappa, R/o D.No. 12-1-49 Panduranga Temple Street, Uravakonda Anantapuramu District 5. V.Mallikarjuna, aged 71 yrs S/o Late V.Anjaneyulu, r/o D.No. 187 KT Road, Ramachandra Nagar Tirupathi {Urban),Tirupathi ...Petitioners AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Department of Revenue Secretariat Complex, Velagapudi Amaravathi rep by its Principal Secretary 2. The A.P. Khadi and Village Industries Board, Mangalagiri, Andhra Pradesh Rep by its CEO 3. The Assistant Director, A.P.Khadi and Village Industries Board C/o District Industries Centre, Anantapuramu. 4. The District Collector, Anantapuramu District. 5. The Revenue Divisonal Officer, Guntakal, Anantapuramu District. 6. The Tahsildar, UravakondaMandal Anantapuramu District. 7. Nagamma, W/o Vunnarappa, Aged about 63 years, R/o D.No.2-40, Budagavi Village, Uravakonda Mandal, Anantapuram District. ( R7 is impleaded as per the Court Order dt.01.10.2024 vide orders passed in I.A.No. 01 of 2023.) ...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 of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in conducting an enquiry vide notice Rc.No.188/2022/B dated 19.09.2022, 29.10.2022 and 14.11.2022 and proceeding to remove the names of the petitioners from the revenue records for the lands to an extent of Ac. 0.83 in Sy.No. 294-A3, Ac. 1.15 cents in Sy.No. 274-A, Ac. 1.16 in Sy.No. 274-A, Ac.1.00 in Sy.No. 156-B, Ac.0.83 in Sy.No. 294-A3 respectively in Budagavi Village, Uravakonda, Anantapuramu District as illegal and arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadhar Passbooks Act, 1971 and Rules made there under and also in violation of the principles of natural justice besides violative of petitioner's rights guaranteed under Article 14, 21 and 300(A) of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same. 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 stay the proceedings vide notice Rc.No.188/2022/B dated 19.09.2022, 29.10.2022 and 14.11.2022 for removal of the names of the petitioners from the revenue records for the lands to an extent of Ac. 0.83 in Sy.No. 294-A3, Ac. 1.15 cents in Sy.No. 274-A, Ac. 1.16 in Sy.No. 274-A, Ac.1.00 in Sy.No. 156-B, Ac.0.83 in Sy.No. 294-A3 respectively in Budagavi Village, Uravakonda, Anantapuramu Districtpending disposal of the writ petition. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 1. The A.P. Khadi and Village Industries Board, Mangalagiri, Andhra Pradesh Rep by its CEO 2. The Assistant Director, A.P.Khadi and Village Industries Board C/o District Industries Centre, Anantapuramu. ...Petitioners/Respondents No. 2&3 AND 1. Valmiki Kristappa, aged 51 yrs S/o Late Anjineyulu, R/o Boodagavi Village Uravakonda Mandal, Anantapuramu (D) 2. Valmiki Raja Dushyant, aged 26 yrs S/o Valmiki Seenappa, R/o D.No. 12-1-49 Panduranga Temple Street, Uravakonda Anantapuramu District. 3. Degulapadu Samrat, aged 34 yrs S/o Degulapadu Govindappa r/o Boodagavi Village, Uravakonda Mandal, Anantapuramu District 4. Valmiki Raja Yaswanth, aged 22 yrs S/o Valmiki Seenappa, R/o D.No. 12-1-49 Panduranga Temple Street, Uravakonda Anantapuramu District 5. V.Mallikarjuna, aged 71 yrs S/o Late V.Anjaneyulu, r/o D.No. 187 KT Road, Ramachandra Nagar Tirupathi (Urban), Tirupathi. ...Petitioners. 6. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Department of Revenue Secretariat Complex, Velagapudi Amaravathi rep by its Principal Secretary 7. The District Collector, Anantapuramu District. 8. The Revenue Divisonal Officer, Guntakal, Anantapuramu District. 9. The Tahsildar, UravakondaMandal Anantapuramu District. Nagamma, W/o Vunnarappa, Aged about 63 years, R/o D.No.2- 40, Budagavi Village, Uravakonda Mandal, Anantapuram District. 10. { R7 is impleaded as per the Court Order dt.01.10.2024 vide orders passed in I.A.No. 01 of 2023.) ...Respondents 1, 4 to 7 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 Stay orders dated: 28-12-2022 in W.P.No.41097 of 2022. lA NO: 2 OF 2024 Nagamma, W/o Vunnarappa, Aged about 63 years, R/o D.No.2-40, Budagavi Village, Uravakonda Mandal, Anantapuram District. ...Petitioner/7‘'’ Respondent ^ 1. Valmiki Kristappa, aged 51 yrs S/o Late Anjineyulu, R/o Boodagavi Village Uravakonda Mandal, Anantapuramu (D) Valmiki Raja Dushyant, aged 26 yrs S/o Valmiki Seenappa, R/o D.No. 12-1-49 Panduranga Temple Street, Uravakonda Anantapuramu District. Degulapadu Samrat, aged 34 yrs S/o Degulapadu Govindappa r/o Boodagavi Village, Uravakonda Mandal, Anantapuramu District Valmiki Raja Yaswanth, aged 22 yrs S/o Valmiki Seenappa, R/o D.No. 12-1-49 Panduranga Temple Street, Uravakonda Anantapuramu District V.Mallikarjuna, aged 71 yrs S/o Late V.Anjaneyulu, r/o D.No. 187 KT Road, Ramachandra Nagar Tirupathi (Urban),Tirupathi 2. 3. 4. 5. ...Respondents/Petitioners AND 6. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Department of Revenue Secretariat Complex, Velagapudi Amaravathi rep by its Principal Secretary The A.P. Khadi and Village Industries Board, Mangalagiri, Andhra Pradesh Rep by its CEO 7. 8. The Assistant Director, A.P.Khadi and Village Industries Board C/o District Industries Centre, Anantapuramu. 9. The District Collector, Anantapuramu District. The Revenue Divisonal Officer, Guntakal, Anantapuramu District. The Tahsildar, UravakondaMandal Anantapuramu District. 10. 11. ... 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 order dt. 28-12-2022 made in W.P. No. 41097 of 2022. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. HARISH KUMAR RASINENI Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1, 4 to 6: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2&3: M/S KOPARTHI SUMATHI SC FOR KVIB Counsel for the Respondent No.7: SRI A BHASKARA CHARY The Court made the following order: r APHC010695712022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] THURSDAY ,THE SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 41097/2022 Between: ...PETITIONER{S) Valmiki Kristappa and Others AND ...RESPONDENT(S) The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner{S); 1.HARISH KUMAR RASINENl Counsel for the Respondent{S): 1.KOPPARTHI SUMATHI ( SC FOR KVIB ) 2.GP FOR REVENUE 3.. 4.ABHASKARA CHARY The Court made the following ORDER: Impugning the action of the respondents in conducting enquiry pursuant to notice Rc.No.188/2022/B, dated 19.09.2022, 29.10.2022, and 14.11.2022 and thereby proceeding to remove the names of the petitioners from the revenue records, the present writ petition is filed. Heard Sri Harish Kumar Rasineni, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Bhaskara Chary, learned counsel for unofficial Respondent No.7, Ms. Koparthi Sumathi, learned Standing Counsel for Khadi Bhandar, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 and Sri Krishna Praneeth, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondent Nos.1,4 to 6. 2. 2 The learned counsel for the petitioners, in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit contended that petitioners are the bona fide purchasers for valid consideration of the subject property under Registered Sale Deed, dated 26.08.1977 and ever since they have been in possession of the property. He further contended that the husband of the 7**^ respondent obtained a loan from the Khadi Bhandar, wherein the 7*^ Respondent stood as a surety and executed a surety bond. It came to the light that the husband of the 7‘^ respondent has failed to repay the said amount. Khadi Bhandar sent a communication to the revenue authorities against the subject property and prayed to cancel the mutation of the petitioners’ name in the revenue records. Taking the said communication/representation into consideration, the impugned notice has been issued by the Tahsildar and now is proceeding with the enquiry to cancel the mutation of the petitioners’ name in the revenue records. The Khadi Bhandar has nothing to do with the said issue and cannot have any dispute with regard to mutation took place in favour of the petitioners. Once the petitioners purchased the subject property under registered sale deed, the revenue authorities taking into consideration the same, mutated the petitioners’ name. The Tahsildar has no jurisdiction or any authority to entertain the application/representation and proceed with the enquiry for cancellation of mutation took place in favour of the petitioners. If such enquiry is proceeded, not only causes mental agony to the petitioners, but also the petitioners will be put to great hardship. As such, prayed to pass appropriate orders. 3. On the other hand, Sri Bhaskara Chary, learned counsel for the unofficial respondent No.7, on counter submitted that the petitioners entered into a written agreement with the 7^*^ respondent and stated that they would repay debt to the Khadi Bhandar and accordingly 7*^ respondent has executed a registered sale deed in their favour. After executing the sale deed, they turned back and did not pay the debt as per the written agreement. In those circumstances, suit has already been filed against Petitioners vide O.S.No.117 of 2024 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ananthapuram. The 4. w 3 writ petition is meritless, devoid of merits and prayed to dismiss the writ petition. On the other hand, Ms. Koparthi Sumathi, learned Standing Counsel on counter submitted that, in order to recover the debt, the Board is taking steps and in the meantime the 7**^ respondent sold the property in favour of the petitioners. Now the petitioners may create third party interest by further alienation. In those circumstances, a representation was made to enquire into the matter and furnish information in that regard only. No prejudice would be caused to the petitioners, if enquiry is conducted. The petitioners have not made out any case warranting the interference of this Hon’ble Court as such prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that, the petitioners cannot question the notice under 226 of the Constitution. The writ petition is not maintainable and accordingly prayed to dismissthe writ petition. 6. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on both sides. 7. Petitioners are claiming that the subject property has been purchased from the 7*'^ respondent under registered sale deed for valuable consideration. The contention of the T'^ respondent is that as the petitioners have entered into a written agreement promising that they would clear the debt with the Khadi Bhandar and after executing a sale deed, they failed to comply the conditions of the agreement and turned back. In those circumstances, respondent No.7 filed a suit vide O.S.No.117 of 2024 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu. It is also not in dispute that the 7*'^ respondent/husband took a loan from the Khadi Bhandar, for which the 7*^ respondent has given surety bond. If at all the Khadi Bhandar has any right to recover the amount from the 7**^ respondent or husband of the 7'*^ respondent, there is no necessity to approach the Tahsildar and make a representation asking him to conduct enquiry and cancel the mutation of the petitioners’ 8. I C 4 name. Similarly, respondent also cannot oppose the case of the petitioners in the present writ petition and can independently fight for their rights in the suit filed by them against the petitioners herein. The Khadi Bhandar cannot ask Tahsildar to conduct enquiry for cancellation of the petitioners’ name in the revenue records and they have no right in asking so. Insofar as the contention of the learned Assistant Government Pleader that the petitioners cannot question notice under 226 of the Constitution, entertaining the writ petition against show case notice is beyond the limit of writ jurisdiction,but there is an exception to the said principle. As stated (supra), respondent No.7 herein cannot have any grievance against the mutation of the petitioner’s name in the revenue records and they have no such right to question. Considering the representation and proceeding with the enquiry, does not arise. The petitioners have made out a case warranting this Hon’ble Court and accordingly, the writ petition has to be allowed by setting aside the impugned notice. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed, setting aside the impugned notices dated 19.09.2022, 29.10.2022, and 14.11.2022. There shall be no order as to costs. 9. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- K.J.RAJA BABU assistant registrar //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Department of Revenue Secretariat Complex, State of Andhra Pradesh, Velagapudi Amaravathi rep by its Principal Secretary 2. The CEO, A.P. Khadi and Village Industries Board, Mangalagiri, Andhra Pradesh. 3. The Assistant Director, A.P.Khadi and Village Industries Board C/o District Industries Centre, Anantapuramu. 4. The District Collector, Anantapuramu District. 5. The Revenue Divisonal Officer, Guntakal, Anantapuramu District. \ 6. The Tahsildar, UravakondaMandal Anantapuramu District 7. One CC to Sri. Harish Kumar Rasineni Advocate [OPUC] 8. One CC to Sri. A Bhaskara Chary Advocate [OPUC] 9. One CC to Smt. Koparthi Sumathi SC for KVIB [OPUC] 10. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. / [OUT] 11. Three CD Copies GSC HIGH COURT DATED:02/01/2025 ORDER WP.No.41097 of 2022 i 20 MAR 2025 Oil Current Section * ALLOWING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS