APHC010632572018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3209] TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA WRIT PETITION NO: 30478/2018 Between: 1. KAKANI SRINIVASA RAO, S/O RAMA RAO, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCC. CULTIVATION, R/O D.NO. 1-49/A, BORUVANCHA VILLAGE, NUZVID MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI VILLAGE, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KRISHNA DISTRICT, MACHILIPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, NUZVID, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 4. THE THASILDHAR, BAPULAPADU MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 5. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, HANUMAN JUNCTION POLICE STATION, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 6. CHINTALA VENUGOPAL, S/O APPA RAO, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCC. CULTIVATION, R/O KOTHAPPALLI VILLAGE, BAPULAPADU MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): NJS,J W.P No.30478 of 2018 2 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SREENIVASA RAO VELIVELA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME (AP) 2. GP FOR REVENUE (AP) 3. PASALAPUDI SATYA HARITHA NJS,J W.P No.30478 of 2018 3 The Court made the following Order: The present writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:- “…issue Writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the order in R.C.A/251/2018 dated 8-8-2018 of 4th respondent, deciding the title and ownership of land in survey No.31/4 of Kothapalli Village, Bapulapadu Mandal, Krishna District, as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and violative of principles of natural justice and rights guaranteed under Art 300-A of Constitution of India, and to pass such other order or orders…” 2. Heard Mr. Sreenivasa Rao Velivela, learned counsel for the petitioner appearing through online. Also heard Mr. K Arjun Chowdary, learned Assistant Government Pleader representing the respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Ms. Pasalapudi Satya Haritha, learned counsel for the respondent No.6. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner referring to the averments in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that the petitioner is a absolute owner of the land admeasuring Ac. 0.81 cents in R.S No.31/4 of Kothapalli Village, Bapulapadu Mandal, Krishna District, made submissions inter alia to the effect that the pattadar pass books and title deeds were issued to the petitioner. He submits that entertaining an application dated 09.05.2018 moved by the respondent No.6 alleging that an extent of Ac. 0.10 cents in R.S No.31/4 of Kothapalli Village was occupied by one Chintala Shiva Prasad and to hand over the same, by removing the fence, the respondent No.4 addressed the impugned communication in R.C.A/251/2018 dated 08.08.2018 to the respondent No.5-Station House Officer. He submits that the said communication is not sustainable in law in as much as the respondent No.4 had declared the title in favor of the persons referred to therein in respect of the land situated in R.S No.31/4 of Kothapalli Village. It is his submission that the respondent No.4 has no jurisdiction to decide the rights of the parties much less the title disputes by assuming the powers of the competent Civil Court. He also contends that, in fact, the respondent No.5 has not even called for a report and there is no such reference in the proceedings impugned in the NJS,J W.P No.30478 of 2018 4 writ petition. He submits that the respondent No.6 instead of working out his remedies available in law, approached the respondent No.4 by making an application referred to above and entertaining the same by the respondent No.4 is illegal, without jurisdiction and unsustainable in law. Making the said submission, the learned counsel seeks to allow the writ petition. 4. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue sought to justify the action of the respondent No.4. However, no counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondent No.4. 5. The learned counsel representing the respondent No.6 sought to impress upon the Court and justify the proceedings which are subject matter of challenge in the writ petition. Referring to the averments in the counter- affidavit she would contend that as there is illegal encroachment into the land of the respondent No.6 in the above referred survey number, complaint is lodged to the respondent No.5 and a report was called for from the respondent No.4. While fairly stating that the disputes with regard to title are required to be adjudicated by a competent Court of Civil Jurisdiction, the learned counsel states that the respondent No.6 filed a suit in O.S No.251 of 2024 on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nuzvid, arraigned the writ petitioner as a party defendant and the writ petitioner is contesting the suit. 6. In such circumstances, the learned counsel would submit that appropriate orders may be passed, leaving it open to the parties to contest the matter before the Civil Court, instead of adjudicating in the present writ petition. 7. This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides. 8. At the outset, it is to be noted that the issue is not with regard to the ownership rights of the parties and alleged encroachment of lands allegedly NJS,J W.P No.30478 of 2018 5 owned by the respondent No.6. The subject mentioned in the impugned proceedings/communication dated 08.08.2018 makes this aspect clear. In such an event, as rightly pointed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondent No.6 is required to seek appropriate remedies available in law. Inspite of that, it appears, a complaint is lodged to the concerned police. 8. No information is forthcoming as to whether any criminal case is registered against the alleged encroachers, even assuming that there is some encroachment. Be that as it may. 9. The respondent No.4, who is not conferred with any adjudicatory powers to decide the rights of the parties, which is vested to the competent Civil Court having jurisdiction over the subject matter property, cannot decide or adjudicate the rights/title disputes much less the aspect of any encroachment. Irrespective of whether any report is called for from the respondent No.5, his action undertaking the exercise of declaration of the rights of the parties in respect of the land is wholly unsustainable and impermissible. 10. In the aforesaid view of the matter, the proceedings/communication dated 08.08.2018 is unsustainable and accordingly, the same is set aside. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. However, it is made clear that this Court has not examined the rights or otherwise of the parties to the present writ petition in any manner, and they are at liberty to contest the suit referred to above to establish their respective rights. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA Date:04.11.2025 Ksj