APHC010579962025 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: 1163/2025 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent to allow the Writ Appeal by setting aside the order in W.P. No. 23310 of 2025 dated 04.09.2025 and pass Between: 1. D NAGARJUNA, S/O. LATE D. SUBRAMANYAM RAJU AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS. 2. MUPPALA LEELA KRISHNA, , S/O. M. SUBRAMANYAM, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS. 3. D.AMARNADH, , S/O. D. RAJENDRA RAJU, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS. 4. M. RAJA,, S/O.LATE M N SUBRAMANYAM RAJU AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS. (ALL ARE RESIDING AT THIMMARAJU KANDRIGA VILLAGE,PUTTUR MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT.) ...APPELLANT(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, AMARAVATI. 2. TAHSILDAR, PUTTUR, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. 3. M ANNAPURNESWARI, ,W/O. K.SUDARSANAM, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC EMPLOYEE, R/O 67/4D. NGO COLONY, PUTTUR, 2 RRR, J & BVLNC, J W.A.No.1163 of 2025 TIRUPATI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 517583 4. M GUNASUNDRA RAJU, C/O. M.VENKATAKRISHNAM RAJU, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, OCC RETIRED EMPLOYEE, R/O FLAT NO.B 201, SINDUR PRISTINE APARTMENT, NO.1 PERUMAL KOLISTREET, THIRUVALLUR DISTRICT, TAMILNADU- 600060 ...RESPONDENT(S): IA 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 grant leave to the appellants to file the above Writ Appeal against the order dated: 04.09.2025 in W.P. No. 23310 of 2025 in the interest of justice and pass IA 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 pleased to suspend the operation of the order dated: 04.09.2025 in W.P. No. 23310 of 2025 pending disposal of the above writ appeal and pass Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. DODDAKA HARSHA VARDHAN Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. C M R VELU 3 RRR, J & BVLNC, J W.A.No.1163 of 2025 The Court made the following Judgment: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R Raghunandan Rao) The respondents 3 & 4 claim title and possession over Ac.17.4 cents of land in Sy.No.286 of Thimmaraju Kandriga Village, Puttur Mandal, Tirupati District, on the basis of a sale which is said to have been executed, in favour of their ancestors in the year 1906. The respondents 3 & 4 had approached this Court, by way of W.P.No.23310 of 2025, contending that the Tahsildar of Puttur Mandal, had interfered with their possession over the said land, when they attempted to fence the land and the Tahsildar had stopped such fencing of the said land. The respondents 3 & 4 sought a direction from this Court to the Tahsildar not to interfere with their possession over the said land and not to interfere with their occupation of the said land. 2. A learned Single Judge of this Court, by an order, dated 04.09.2025, had disposed of the Writ Petition, with a direction to the respondent Authorities not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land of the respondents 3 & 4, except by following due process of law. 3. Aggrieved by this order, the residents of the said village have filed the present Writ Appeal, seeking leave of this Court. 4 RRR, J & BVLNC, J W.A.No.1163 of 2025 4. It is the contention of the appellants that the said land, which falls in the category of Gramakantam, does not belong to respondent 3 & 4 and that they are not in possession of the said land. 5. The respondents 3 & 4 dispute this contention and submit that they are very much in possession of the said land. 6. Both sides place various documents to demonstrate that the said land was either in the possession of respondents 3 & 4 or that it was not in the possession of respondents 3 & 4. 7. We do not propose to go into the question as to who is in actual possession of the land, as such a decision would be difficult for this Court, in the absence of any adequate material, which is not in dispute. 8. However, the fact remains that it is the admitted case on both sides that the said land is presently classified as Gramakantam land. It is settled law, by a consistent line of Judgments of this Court, that Gramakantam land would not vest with the State and it would vest with the Gram Panchayat, which would have control over the said land. 9. In the circumstances, this Writ Appeal is disposed of, directing the Tahsildar, Puttur, not to interfere, in relation to any of the land, which is described as Gramakantam land. However, it would be open to the Gram Panchayat to take necessary steps to direct such land in the Gramakantam area which is under the occupation of any other person. 5 RRR, J & BVLNC, J W.A.No.1163 of 2025 10. Accordingly, the order in the Writ Petition is set aside and the Writ Appeal is accordingly, disposed of. 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 6 RRR, J & BVLNC, J W.A.No.1163 of 2025 122 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI WRIT APPEAL No.1163 of 2025 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R Raghunandan Rao) 17.11.2025 MJA