APHC010508402024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3535] MONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI WRIT APPEAL NO: 969/2024 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent be pleased to set aside the order dated 16-10-2024 passed in W.P.No.23196 of 2024, on the file of this Hon ble Court and pass Between: 1. TULLURI KRISHNA MURTHY,, S/O LATE VENKATESWARLU, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, OCC- CULTIVATION, R/O D.NO.4-100, RANGAMANAYUNI PALLI, PUTLUR MANDAL ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, AP SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH STATE. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ANANTAPUR, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ANANTAPUR, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, PUTLUR MANDAL ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. 5. TULLURI PADMAVATHAMMA, W/O D. VENKATA RAMANA, R/O D.NO.22, VENKATESWARA NILAYAM, VIVEKANANDA NAGAR, HOSPET TOWN, VIJAYANAGAR DISTRICT BANGALORE STATE 2 RRR, J & BVLNC, J W.A.No.969 of 2024 ...RESPONDENT(S): IA 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 stay of all further proceedings pursuant order dated 16.10.2024 passed in WP No. 23196 of 2024 on the file of this Hon’ble High Court at Amaravathi, pending disposal of the main Writ Appeal, and pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. P V VENKATA RAVI SANKAR and Dr. P.B Reddy Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. N SASIKALA 2. GP FOR REVENUE 3. . 3 RRR, J & BVLNC, J W.A.No.969 of 2024 The Court made the following Judgment: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R Raghunandan Rao) The appellant herein is said to have filed a representation, dated 04.09.2024, before the 2nd respondent-District Collector, Anantapur, contending that there was mutation of entries in the revenue records, relating to Ac.2.20 cents of land in Sy.No.631 of Kummanamala Village, Putlur Mandal, Anantapur District, which belongs to him. 2. The case of the appellant was that, this land, which had fallen to his share, out of the family property, was in his name in the revenue records till 2016 and that the revenue records were changed and the land was shown in the name of his sister, who is the 5th respondent in the Writ Petition. 3. The appellant had thereupon approached this Court, by way of W.P.No.23196 of 2024, contending that the said application was not being considered by the District Collector and for issuance of a direction to the District Collector to consider the same. 4. A learned Single Judge of this Court, by order, dated 16.10.2024, had dismissed the Writ Petition on the ground that the appellant was seeking for a direction to the official respondents not to interfere with his possession over the said land and that such a direction would not be given by this Court. 5. The appellant, being aggrieved by the said order, has approached this Court, by way of the present Writ Appeal. 4 RRR, J & BVLNC, J W.A.No.969 of 2024 6. Heard Sri P. V. Venkata Ravi Sankar, learned counsel for the appellant; Smt. N. Sasikala, learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent and the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant would draw the attention of this Court to the pattadar passbook issued to the appellant. He would submit that the pattadar passbook clearly contains the details of Ac.2.20 cents of land in Sy.No.631, which was shown to be his property in the pattadar passbook. He would contend that the said pattadar passbook is sufficient to demonstrate his right over the said property as there were no proceedings issued before the entries relating to the said land were changed in the revenue records to reflect the name of the 5th respondent. He would submit that, in such a situation, the District Collector, under Section 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971, is duty bound to consider and pass orders on this application. 8. Smt. N. Sasikala, learned counsel for the 5th respondent, while reiterating the contentions set out in the counter affidavit filed in the Writ Appeal, would submit that the property in question was ancestral property and had been divided, in an oral partition, in the year 2005. Consequent to such partition, necessary changes in the revenue records were made on 18.02.2005. She would draw the attention of this Court to the very same entries relied upon by the appellant and contends that the land relates to 5 RRR, J & BVLNC, J W.A.No.969 of 2024 Sy.No.631, which was rounded up in the pattadar passbook of the appellant and the same was endorsed by way of a stamp and signature of the then Mandal Revenue Officer. She would also draw the attention of this Court to the pattadar passbook, issued to the 5th respondent, which contains the corresponding entry, counter-signed by the very same Mandal Revenue Officer. She would contend that the mutation had actually taken place in the year 2005 and the appellant after keeping quiet, for the last 20 years, has now woken up to object, because she is selling her land on account of ill health and because she needs money for her medical treatment. She would also contend that one of the daughters of the appellant had filed O.S.No.118 of 2023, before the learned Junior Civil Judge, Tadipatri, and this fact has been deliberately suppressed by the appellant in the Writ Petition. She would draw the attention of this Court to Paragraph Nos.4 and 11, where this fact has been specifically pleaded. She would submit that the partition suit is itself very curious inasmuch as the daughter of the appellant has chosen to file the suit only in relation to this particular property without including any of the other lands mentioned in the pattadar passbook of the appellant. 9. We do not propose to go into any of these issues, inasmuch as this Court would not go into complicated questions of fact while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, the fact remains that the appellant has suppressed a significant aspect of the matter, namely, the pendency of O.S.No.118 of 2023 on the file of learned Junior Civil 6 RRR, J & BVLNC, J W.A.No.969 of 2024 Judge, Tadipatri. It is settled law that this Court would not aid any person, who approaches this Court, by suppression of fact or with unclean hands. 10. In the circumstances, this Writ Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any shall stand closed. ________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J ________________________ B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI, J Date:17.11.2025 MJA 7 RRR, J & BVLNC, J W.A.No.969 of 2024 126 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI WRIT APPEAL No.969 of 2024 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R Raghunandan Rao) 17.11.2025 MJA