APHC010407422017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3206] FRIDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 14078/2017 Between: 1. C.V. RAO & 2 ORS., S/O.LATE CHALASANI ANJANEYULU, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/O.GOPANNAPALEM VILLAGE, DENDULURU MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, A.P. 2. CHALASANI SRIDHAR,, S/O.CHALASANI VENKATESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O.GOPANNAPALEM VILLAGE, DENDULURU MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, A.P. 3. SMT.CHALASANI KOMALA DEVI,, W/O.CHALASANI SRIDHAR, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/O.GOPANNAPALEM VILLAGE, DENDULURU MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, A.P. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. PRL SECY REV DEPT 3 ORS, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT ELURU A P, - 3. THE TAHSILDAR DENDULURU MANDAL WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, A.P. 4. THE DISTRICT LIBRARY COMMITTEE, (ZILLA GRANDHALAYA SAMSTHA), REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT/CHAIRMAN, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, A.P. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 RRR,J W.P.No.14078 of 2017 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 toto issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of mandamus, declaring the 3rd respondent's Endorsement, dt.22.03.2017 in Lr.No.119/2017(A) (e-645283), as illegal, without jurisdiction and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently set-aside the same and direct the respondents not to interfere in any manner with the petitioners' peaceful possession and enjoyment of their land an extent of Ac.1.17 cts, situated in R.S.No.293/1 of Gopannapalem Village, Denduluru Mandal, West Godavari District, and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. IA NO: 1 OF 2017(WPMP 17462 OF 2017 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 to suspend the 3rd respondent's Endorsement, dt.22.03.2017 in Lr.No.119/2017(A) (e-645283), pending disposal of writ petition and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. IA NO: 1 OF 2021 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 permit the petitioners to bring on record as parties/petitioners 4 and 5 per LRs of deceased 1st writ petitioner to the main writ petition in WP 14078/2017 and pending Interlocutory applications therein 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 may be pleased to receive the Reply copy on record by allowing the leave petition in W.P. NO. 14078/2017, and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. N PULLARAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE (AP) 3 RRR,J W.P.No.14078 of 2017 The Court made the following Order: The petitioner No.2 is the son of the petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.3 is the daughter-in-law of petitioner No.1. It is the case of the petitioners that, the father of petitioner No.1, Sri Chalasani Anjaneyulu, had constructed a library building in land belonging to him and the same was inaugurated in the year, 1951, in R.S.No.293/1 of Gopannapalem Village of Denduluru Mandal, West Godavari District. Though only an extent of Ac.0.04 cents of the land was used for the construction of the said library building, the Government, had illegally constructed three (03) new buildings namely the Mahila Mandali, Panchayat and Community Halls, in the year, 2007 to an extent of Ac.0.15 cents, whereby only an extent of Ac.1.17 cents of land remained in the possession of the petitioners. It is further stated that, a water tank was constructed, on the northern side of this land. 2. The petitioners further claim that, the Tahsildar of the Denduluru Mandal, had obstructed the petitioners from clearing the bushes and undertaking clearing up activity in the remaining land, belonging to the petitioners, in February – 2017. On account of this intervention, the 3rd petitioner is said to have given a Representation to the District Collector of West Godavari, on 01.03.2017, intimating her intention to establish small scale industries in the land belonging to the petitioners. 3. In response to this Representation, an endorsement was made by the Tahsildar, Denduluru Mandal, on 22.03.2017, in 4 RRR,J W.P.No.14078 of 2017 Lr.No.119/2017(A) (e-645823) that the entire extent of Ac.1.32 cents of land in R.S.No.293/1, had been donated by the father of the 1st petitioner to the Government for construction of a library and that, the petitioners do not have any right or title over the said land. 4. The petitioners also contend that, the father of the petitioner No.1, Sri Chalasani Anjaneyulu, was the owner of Ac.1.32 cents in R.S.No.293/1 and that, only an extent of Ac.0.04 cents of land had been utilized for construction of a library. It is also contended that, the remaining land was never gifted to the Government or to any other entity and that the said land remains the property of the petitioners, as family members of Sri Chalasani Anjaneyulu. It is further contended that the said land remains in possession of the petitioners but they are not being allowed to enjoy the said possession due to the interference by the Revenue Authorities. It is also contended that, the endorsement of the Tahsildar, Denduluru Mandal, dated 22.03.2017, is a unilateral declaration of title in favour of the Government and the same is beyond the jurisdiction of the Tahsildar. Apart from the fact that, there is no basis for such a declaration. It is further contended that the aforesaid endorsement has been made, without mentioning any document of transfer under which Sri Chalasani Anjaneyulu, is said to have transferred the land to any public entity. 5. The 3rd respondent – Tahsildar, has filed a counter-affidavit, in which it is stated that, Sri Chalasani Anjaneyulu, was the owner of Ac.1.32 cents of 5 RRR,J W.P.No.14078 of 2017 land in R.S.No.293/1 of Gopannapalem Village, and had handed over the entire land along with a building constructed in the land to the Madras Rural Development Authority and Government Office buildings had been constructed in this site subsequently. It is contended that, such construction shows that, the Government is in possession of the said land. The 3rd respondent would also contend that the will, dated 21.02.1990, said to have been executed by Sri Chalasani Anjaneyulu, in favour of the petitioners, does not affect the title and possession of the Government over the said land. A perusal of the facts would show that, the land under dispute originally belongs to Sri Chalasani Anjaneyulu, and that, Sri Chalasani Anjaneyulu, had built a building for the purposes of using a public library. It is also seen from the material placed before this Court and the averments in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition that, an extent of Ac.0.04 cents was used for the construction of this building. 6. The question of whether Ac.1.32 cents of land had been gifted by Sri Chalasani Anjaneyulu, to the Government or any Government Department and whether he had put either the Government or a Government Department in possession of the entire extent of Ac.1.32 cents of land is a question of fact, which would be difficult for this Court to decide. 7. Prima facie, there would be a requirement of a registered document for transfer of any such land in favour of the Government or any Government Department. No such document has been placed before this Court. However, 6 RRR,J W.P.No.14078 of 2017 it is also contended that the Government Departments are in possession of the entire land. The veracity of such a claim cannot be determined by this Court. 8. In these circumstances, it would only be appropriate to relegate the petitioners to the Civil Court for adjudication on all these issues. 9. Needless to say, the period from which the present Writ Petition has been pending before this Court should be excluded for the purposes of limitation, in the event of any proceedings being initiated, before the appropriate Civil Court, by the petitioners. 10. As far as the impugned endorsement, dated 22.03.2017, issued by the Tahsildar is concerned, the said endorsement is a unilateral endorsement, which does not create any title in favour of the Government nor can any such endorsement be binding on the petitioners. The said endorsement cannot be pressed into service, in any proceedings that may be initiated by the petitioners. 11. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is 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 KPV 7 RRR,J W.P.No.14078 of 2017 288 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO WRIT PETITON No:14078 of 2017 31.10.2025 KPV