APHC010029192025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3525] WEDNESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT APPEAL NO: 124/2025 Between: Jailabuddin ...APPELLANT AND Smt S Shamshed Bee and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant: 1. VELAGANI NARASIMHULU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. BASHA SHAIK The Court made the following Judgment: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) There is a dispute between the appellant and the respondent herein relating to ownership and possession of land admeasuring an extent of Ac.5.05 cents, in Sy.No.36/1 of V. Mittapalli Village & Post, Kuppam Mandal, Chittoor District. The affidavit filed by the respondent speaks of Ac.2.00 cents, in Sy.No.36/1 and Ac.2.00 cents, in Sy.No.104 of V. Mittapalli Village & Post, Kuppam Mandal, Chittoor District. It is not clear as to where the remaining Ac.1.05 cents of land is situated. 2 2. In any event, the respondent approached the Tahsildar, with a representation dated 01.05.2024, to record her physical possession and enjoyment over the land admeasuring an extent of Ac.5.05 cents, in Sy.No.36/1 of V. Mittapalli Village & Post, Kuppam Mandal, Chittoor District. Thereafter, the respondent approached this Court by way of W.P.No.14649 of 2024, for a direction to the Tahsildar, to pass orders on the representation of the respondent. A Learned Single Judge of this Court had disposed of the Writ Petition, by an Order dated 12.07.2024, directing the Tahsildar to consider the said representation. 3. Aggrieved by the said Order dated 12.07.2024, the appellant herein, who had been arrayed as the 4th respondent in the Writ Petition, has filed the present Writ Appeal. 4. The contention of the appellant is that the Order of the Learned Single Judge of this Court was passed without hearing the appellant, at the stage of admission and on the ground that the Tahsildar would not have any power to decide the physical possession of the land. 5. Sri Basha Shaik, learned counsel for the 1st respondent would contend that the Tahsildar has already completed the inquiry and had issued a report certifying the possession of the respondent over the land. He would also submit that the Tahsildar had denied issuance of pattadar pass books as webland entries would have to be amended by way of an appeal or an approach to a competent Civil Court. He would submit that in view of the report, the present Writ Appeal is itself infructuous. 3 6. Neither the Learned Government Pleader for Revenue nor the learned counsel for the private respondent was able to place before this Court, any provision of law, which empowers a Tahsildar to decide physical possession of the land. There does not appear to be any provision of law which empowers a Tahsildar to decide the physical possession of the land, by any person. At best, either the Tahsildar or the Mandal Surveyor and other officials of the survey department, would only delineate boundaries of the survey numbers and their sub divisions. The task of deciding the physical possession of the land would be elsewhere. 7. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Writ Appeal is allowed setting aside the Order of the Learned Single Judge, dated 12.07.2024. The report of the Tahsildar, which is clearly without jurisdiction, cannot be relied upon by any party before any authority. 8. It is needless to say, that this Court is not commenting on the rights of the appellant or the private respondent over the said land and the same is a matter to be determined by an appropriate forum. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J. ________________________ DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J. BSM 4 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO WRIT APPEAL No.124 of 2025 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) Date: 09.04.2025 BSM