APHC010530032023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No. 27409/2023 BETWEEN: 1. NUNE RAJESWARI, W/o. G.V.K. SIVA KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 47 YEAR, R/o. 4/428 UPSTAIRS BADULLA SAHEB MAKHAN STREET,NAGARAJU PETTA, KADAPPA, CUDDAPAH DISTRICT, A.P. 1. THE STATE OF AP, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KADAPA. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, BADVEL, KADAPA 4. THE MANDAL REVENUE GOPAAVARAM. 5. BACHU SUBRAMANYAM S/o.PEDDA SUBBAIAH, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, OCC AMMAVARISALA STREET, BADVEL TOWN, Y.S.R. DISTRICT 6. BACHU NAGESWAR RAO S/o. PEDDA SUBBAIAH, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, OCC AMMAVARISALA STREET, BADVEL MUNICIPALITY, DISTRICT. Reserved on : Pronounced on : Uploaded on : IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No. 27409/2023 NUNE RAJESWARI, W/o. G.V.K. SIVA KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 47 YEAR, R/o. 4/428 UPSTAIRS BADULLA SAHEB MAKHAN STREET,NAGARAJU PETTA, KADAPPA, CUDDAPAH ...PETITIONER AND THE STATE OF AP, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KADAPA. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, BADVEL, KADAPA THE MANDAL REVENUE OFFICER/ TAHSILDAR, GOPAAVARAM. BACHU SUBRAMANYAM S/o.PEDDA SUBBAIAH, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS R/ AMMAVARISALA STREET, BADVEL TOWN, Y.S.R. DISTRICT BACHU NAGESWAR RAO S/o. PEDDA SUBBAIAH, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, OCC:BUSINESS R/o.D.No.7/14 LA STREET, BADVEL MUNICIPALITY, 10.11.2025 19.11.2025 21.11.2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3330] WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO NUNE RAJESWARI, W/o. G.V.K. SIVA KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 47 YEAR, R/o. 4/428 UPSTAIRS BADULLA SAHEB MAKHAN STREET,NAGARAJU PETTA, KADAPPA, CUDDAPAH ...PETITIONER THE STATE OF AP, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY THE DISTRICT THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, BADVEL, KADAPA OFFICER/ TAHSILDAR, BACHU SUBRAMANYAM S/o.PEDDA SUBBAIAH, AGED BUSINESS R/o.D.No.7/4, AMMAVARISALA STREET, BADVEL TOWN, Y.S.R. DISTRICT BACHU NAGESWAR RAO S/o. PEDDA SUBBAIAH, AGED R/o.D.No.7/14-2 LA STREET, BADVEL MUNICIPALITY,Y.S.R. 2 7. SIRIGIRI LALITHA D/o. SUBBARAYUDU, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,.OCC. HOUSE WIFE, R/o. BEDUSUPALLI VILLAGE, GOPAVARAM MANDAL, YSR.DISTRICT 8. AKKI PEDDIREDDY S/o.PEDDIREDDY, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, OCC: CULTIVATION R/o.D.NO.4-1-862/1, ANJANEYA NAGAR STREET, BADVEL TOWN, Y.S.R. DISTRICT. 9. MALEPATI LALITHA W/o. VENKATA SURENDRA KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE, R/o. D.No. 4-1- 966/966-1, ANJANEYA NAGAR STREET, BADVEL TOWN, Y.S.R. DISTRICT. 10. MALEPATI VENKATA SURENDRA KUMAR S/O SUBBA RAO, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS RESIDING AT D.NO.4-1-966/966-1, ANJANEYA NAGAR STREET, BADVEL TOWN, Y.S.R. DISTRICT 11. RATHIKINDHI HARSHA VARDHAN S/o. RAGHAVENDRA PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, OCC: CULTIVATION, R/O D.No.2/655, AKULA STREET, RAJAMPETA TOWN AND MANDAL, Y.S.R. DISTRICT 12. TANGUTURU MADHAVI W/o.CHINNA OULLAIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/o. D.No. 6-6-429, VIDYA NAGAR STREET, BADVEL TOWN AND MANDAL, Y.S.R. DISTRICT. 13. LINGAMDINNE VENKATA SUBBA REDDY S/o.VENKATA SUBBA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 51YEARS, OCC: CULTIVATION, R/o. THIPPARAJUPALLE VILLAGE, B KODUR MANDAL, Y.S.R DISTRICT 14. SINGANA NAGA SUBBA REDDY S/o. PEDDA SESHA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/o. ANJANEYA NAGAR STREET, BADVEL TOWN AND MANDAL, Y.S.R. DISTRICT. 15. THUMMALAPENTA SARITHA W/o. HARI NARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, R/o. D.No.7/20, ARNMAVARI SALA STREET, BADVEL TOWN, Y.S.R. DISTRICT 16. APPANENI PRASANTHI D/o. KONDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCC. CULTIVATION, R/o. KADAPAYA PALLE VILLAGE, SIDDAVATAM MANDAL, Y.S.R. DISTRICT. 3 17. SONTA KONDA REDDY S/o. CHINNA KONDA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O BRHAMANAPALLE VILLAGE, GOPAVARAM MANDAL,Y.S.R. DISTRICT. 18. PATHI VENKATA SUBBAIAH S/o. SUBBAIAH, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/o.D.No.7-329, NAGABHUSANAM LINE, ANJANEYA NAGAR STREET, BADVEL TOWN, Y.S.R. DISTRICT. 19. PATHI SUNIL KUMAR S/o VENKATA SUBBAIAH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. D.No.7-329, ANJANEYA NAGAR STREET, BADVEL TOWN, Y.S.R. DISTRICT. 20. YARAVA BHARATHI W/O RAVINDRA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE, R/o. D.NO.5/51, GANDLA STREET, BADVEL TOWN AND MANDAL, Y.S.R. DISTRICT. 21. GIRI PENCHALAIAH S/o NARASIMHULU, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE EMPLOYEE R/O D.No.1/221-8-3A, SRI LAKSHMI NAGAR STREET, CHINNA CHOWK, KADAPA CITY, Y.S.R. DISTRICT 22. GIRI VIJAYAMMA W/o NARASIMHULU, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE R/o D.No.1/221-8-3A, SRI LAKSHMI NAGAR STREET, CHINNA CHOWK, KADAPA CITY, Y.S.R DISTRICT 23. CHENCHANINAGAIAHGARI SRINIVASULU S/O GURAVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCC. CULTIVATION, R/O D.NO.3/20, ANANTHARAJUPURAM VILLAGE,BADVEL MANDAL, Y.S.R. DISTRICT. RR 5 TO 24 ( TOTAL 19 APPELLANTS IN W.A.) ARE IMPLEADED AS PER THE PARA 9 OF JUDGEMENT DT.20.06.2024 IN W.A.472 OF 2024. ...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 to issue an order, direction or writ, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction of the 4th Respondent in not uploading his removed digital signature on the land of the Petitioners about an extent of Ac. 02.54 Cents in Survey No. 809 located in Madakalvaripalle Village, Gopavaram Mandal, Badvel Revenue Division of Cuddapah District in the webland which alone 4 would facilitate the Petitioner to obtain the necessary Pattadar Passbook in Form I-B as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14, 21and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondent authorities to take necessary steps on the issue of removal of the digital signature of the 4th Respondent in the digital records and to upload the signature of the 4th Respondent in the web land, by declaring the order passed by respondent No.3 in Case No.D.Dis.10/2023 dated.23.01.2024 forthwith in the interest of justice and pass such other order or orders as this Honble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case Prayer is amended as per the Court Order dated.26.02.2024 vide order passed in IA No.1/2024. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. S LAKSHMINARAYANA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. V R REDDY KOVVURI The Court made the following: 5 ORDER: The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief/s: ……to issue an order, direction or writ, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction of the 4th respondent in not uploading his removed digital signature on the land of the Petitioner’s about an extent of Ac.02.54 Cents in Survey No.809 located in Madakalvaripalle Village, Gopavaram Mandal, Badvel Revenue Division of Cuddaph District in the webland which alone would facilitate the Petitioner to obtain the necessary Pattadar Passbook in Form I-B, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondent authorities to take necessary steps on the issue of removal of the digital signature of the 4th Respondent in the digital records and to upload the signature of the 4th Respondent in the web land, forthwith in the interest of justice and pass such other order or orders ….. 2. The action of the Tahsildar in removing the "Digital Signature" in the Webland concerning the property of the writ petitioner in Sy. No. 809/1, measuring 2.50 acres, was challenged in the writ petition. 3. The writ petitioner states that Nune Ankanna purchased a property from Sayyed Mahboob Miyya through a registered sale deed dated 17.09.1917, vide registration number 1003/1917 and recorded in Book No. 103, Volume No. 271 in the Badvel Registrar's office, and on 6 devolution an extent of Ac. 2.50 cents in Sy. No.809, the property encompasses an area of Ac.2-50 cents in Sy.No.809, and through subsequent transfers, the petitioner has ultimately gained possession. Petitioner made an application under the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 to the revenue administration. Following an enquiry, the 4th respondent issued notices on 27.09.2021, 08.11.2021, and 23.11.2021. To whom the notices were issued is doubt or ambiguity. The details regarding the recognition of the right, title, and possession of the property were uploaded. The name of the petitioner was then updated in the revenue records, and a pattadar passbook and title deed were issued in the petitioner's favour. Additionally, it is stated that the survey department conducted a survey and issued a survey certificate. 4. When the matter stood thus to the utter surprise and dismay of the petitioner, the 4th respondent has removed the digital signature and the property was noted with red mark for the best reason known to the revenue administration, and it was done without any notice and the petitioner made a complaint to the SPANDANA on 01.08.2022, as there is no response from the revenue department, petitioner made complaint to various constitutional heads including P.M.O. Though it is not specifically asserted in the affidavit, on the instruction from the Prime Minister office, the 3rd respondent after following the procedure had 7 conducted enquiry and delivered the order vide proceedings Case No. D.Dis.10 / 2023 dated 23.01.2024 giving a finding that the petitioner has no continuous flow of title and accordingly rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner. 5. The petitioner asserts in the affidavit that applications were submitted on 21.11.2022 and 04.12.2022 to the revenue department, for the restoration of the digital signature. The lack of response from the revenue department has compelled the petitioner to file the present writ petition, numbered as W.P. No. 27409 of 2023, before this Court. 6. A learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 20.03.2024 has allowed the writ petition and directed the 4th respondent-Tahsildar to delete the property from the dispute register observing that no notice whatsoever was issued to the petitioner as mandated under Rule 9(1)(c)(ii) of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books rules, 1989. 7. Assailing the order of the learned Single Judge of this Court, the unofficial respondents 5 to 23 has filed intra Court appeal vide W.A. No.472 of 2024 on obtaining leave and the said appeal is allowed by a division bench of this Court vide order dated 20.06.2024 and remanded to the Single Judge and permitted to raise all the issues before the learned Single Judge. 8 8. The counsel for the petitioner argues that the 4th respondent- Tahsildar, cannot remove the “Digital Signature” voluntarily without issuing notice, it contradicts the full bench judgment of the former High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Chinnam Pandurangam vs. Mandal Revenue Officer Sherlingamplalli Mandal & others1. The petitioner asserts that her rights are inherited from their ancestors and disputes the claims made by the unofficial respondents. Petitioner contend that these unofficial respondents cannot construct houses without converting the land from agricultural to non-agricultural use, noting that there are no conversion proceedings existence. The petitioner defines the Tahsildar's action as a serious offense, arguing that no citizen's property can be deprived without following due process, and it deprives the petitioner right to life and property, violating Articles 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India. That the Tahsildar cannot remove the digital signature without notice, deeming this a violation of natural justice and contrary to the aforementioned judgment of the former High Court of Andhra Pradesh. 9. The unofficial respondents contends that there is no relation between Nune Ankanna (who is the owner of the property) and the family members of the writ petitioner, are wrongly claiming rights over the property, in fact, have a legitimate legal title or ownership right to the 1 AIR 2008 A.P. 15 9 property in question. It is further contention of the unofficial respondents that several transactions have taken place over the subject land and the unofficial respondents have constructed the houses after receiving the necessary permissions from the competent authority, which would only grant such permissions if the authorities have satisfied with evidence of rightful ownership. 10. The petitioner was never in possession of the property, the Tahsildar, adhering to the proper procedure, removed the digital signature from the revenue record. Subsequently, the petitioner filed complaints with various constitutional authorities. In accordance with the Prime Minister's Office instructions, the Revenue Divisional Officer conducted an inquiry, following due process, and concluded that the writ petitioner had never been in possession of the property. Therefore, it was rightly determined that there was no continuous flow of title over the property, and rightly the Revenue Divisional Officer has not restored the Digital Signature and supported the findings of the 3rd respondent (R.D.O). And it is further contended that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands while the appeal is pending before the 3rd respondent R.D.O., the petitioner has filed the writ petition before this Court and the same was suppressed on this score alone the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 10 11. Heard learned counsel Sri S. Lakshminaryana Reddy for the petitioner and Sri V.R. Reddy Kovvuri for unofficial respondents and the learned government pleader for official respondents. 12. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION : The Apex Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax, West vs Durga Prasad More2, held that : In a case of the present kind a party who relies on a recital in a deed has to establish the truth of those recitals otherwise it will be very easy to make self-serving statements in documents either executed or taken by a party and rely on those recitals. 13. The writ petitioner executed a Will in favour of her children. The recitals in the Will indicates that Nune Ankanna purchased a property from Sayyed Mahboob Miyya through a registered sale deed dated 17.09.1917, vide registration number 1003/1917 and recorded in Book No. 103, Volume No. 271 in the Badvel Registrar office by Nune Ankayya (who is unmarried) and on his death, the property devolved upon his father, Nune Pedda Subbaiah. Following the death of Nune Pedda Subbaiah, it was succeeded by Nune Chinna Subbaiah and Nune Vannuraiah, as another brother, Nune Seshaiah, died without issue. These individuals were the brothers of Nune Pedda Subbaiah, who were from the branch of Nune Chalam. The entire recitals in the Will, however, AIR 1971 SC 2439 11 did not state the specific property details purchased by Nune Ankayya. The petitioner is the granddaughter of Nune Vannuraiah, 14. There is no pleading in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition about the Will, and without such a pleading, it cannot be relied upon. The counsel for the petitioner emphasises his argument, sheet anchor on the Will, which cannot be admitted as it is merely a self- serving document and an afterthought. It is not free from the possibility of being a prepared self-serving document. 15. The Will that is filed along as material is nothing but a self serving document for explaining the case cannot be relied on and no relief can be granted on the basis of such document, and the Will itself fails to indicate the property details, specifically the Survey Number and the extent of the land purchased by Nune Ankanna. And the petitioner has not filed any corroborative evidence, hence the Will itself is a self-serving document which cannot be relied upon as an admissible evidence. 16. And it is known law that the entries in the revenue record are fiscal in nature and they do not confer any right or title and based upon the same, the title cannot be presumed. It is the specific contention of the unofficial respondents that the property does not belong to the writ petitioner, who is claiming the property solely based on the surname of Nune. 12 17. Hon'ble Apex Court in Sankalchan Jaychandbhai Patel and Others vs Vithalbhai Jaychandbhai Patel and Others3, has held that mutation entries are only to enable the State to collect revenue from the person in possession and enjoyment of the property and the right, title and interest as to the property shall be established de hors the entries. The entries arc one of the modes of proof of enjoyment of the property, mutation entries do not create any title or interest therein. 18. Later, in Durga Das Vs. Collector and Others4, and in Suman Verma Vs. Union of India and others5 the Hon'ble Apex Court held that title to the property should be on the basis of the title they acquired the property and not by mutation entries. 19. In Baleshwar Tewari (dead)& Ors vs Sheo Jatan & Ors6,: Apex Court observed to the following effect:- ...Entries in Revenue records is the paradise of the patwari and the tiller of the soil is rarely concerned with the same. So long as his possession and enjoyment is not interdicted by due process and course of law, he is least concerned with entries. It is common knowledge in rural India that a raiyat always regards the land he ploughs as his dominion and generally obeys, with moral fibre the command of the intermediary so long as his possession is not 3 1996 (6) SCC 433 4 1996 (5) SCC 618 5 (2004) 12 SCC 58) 6 1997 (5) SCC 112 13 disturbed. Therefore, creation of records is a camouflage to defeat just and legal right or claim and interest of the raiyat, the tiller of the soil on whom the Act confers title to the land ted in he tills. 20. In the case of Ritesh Tewari & Anr vs State Of U.P.& Ors7 held that: The power under Article 226 of the Constitution is discretionary and supervisory in nature. It is not issued merely because it is lawful to do so. The extraordinary power in writ jurisdiction does not exist to set right mere errors of law which do not occasion any substantial injustice. A writ can be issued only in case of a grave miscarriage of justice or where there has been a flagrant violation of law. The writ court has not only to protect a person from being subjected to a violation of law but also to advance justice and not to thwart it. The Constitution does not place any fetter on the power of the extraordinary jurisdiction but leaves it to the discretion of the court. 1 However, being that the power is discretionary, the court has to balance competing interests, keeping in mind that the interests of justice and public interest are coalesce generally. A court of equity, when exercising its equitable jurisdiction must act so as to prevent perpetration of a legal fraud and promote good faith and equity. An order in equity is one which is equitable to all the parties concerned. Petition can be entertained only after being fully satisfied about the factual statements and not in a casual and cavalier manner. 7 2010 (10) SCC 677 14 21. The Apex Court in Champalal Binani vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West Bengal & others8 held that: “A writ of certiorari is discretionary; it is not issued merely because it is lawful to do so. Where the party feeling aggrieved by an order of an Authority under the Income-tax Act has an adequate alternative remedy which he may resort to against the improper action of the authority and he does not avail himself of that remedy the High Court will require a strong case to be made out for entertaining a petition for a writ.” “Where the aggrieved party has an alternative remedy the High Court would be slow to entertain a petition challenging an order of a taxing authority which is ex facie with jurisdiction. A petition for a writ of certiorari may lie to the High Court, where the order is on the face of it erroneous or raises question of jurisdiction or of infringement of fundamental rights of the petitioner. The present case was one in which the jurisdiction of the High Court could not be invoked.” The petitioner is having alternative remedy of Appeal under Section 9 of A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act 197 against the impugned order of the 3rd respondent Revenue Divisional Officer. 22. The petitioner has not filed any supporting evidence to establish the relation between the father of the petitioner and Nune Ankanna who purchased the property and the writ petitioner claiming the property. 8 (1971) 3 SCC 20 15 Mere assertion in the self-styled Will, with no other evidence produced, is insufficient. The family member certificate filed along with the writ petition belongs to the siblings of Nune Vannuraiah. And it is settled law that the family member certificate cannot be equated with the succession certificate. In the absence of any evidence, the self-styled Will cannot be taken into consideration to claim title over the property by the writ petitioner. 23. In view of the above binding precedents, as held by the Apex Court, a party is bound to plead and prove the facts properly. In the absence of the same, the Court should not entertain the point. And there is no pleading in the affidavit about the Will and it is apparent that the revenue record by itself neither create nor extinguish title. When there is serious dispute about the title this Court is not inclined to interfere with impugned order of the 3rd respondent Revenue Divisional Officer, writ petition fails and accordingly it is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. ___________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 19.11.2025 Harin 16 3 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T ARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO W.P.No. 27409 OF 2023 Date: 19.11.2025 Harin