APHC010186732018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH TUESDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA WRIT PETITION No: 8150 of Between: 1. KAPPALA SATYAVENI, W/O PAUL, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O D.NO.2-170, BOMMURU, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM RURAL MANDAL, EAST GODAWARI DISTRICT. 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRL.SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, KAKINADA. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM RURAL MANDAL, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 5. JANNU PAPARAO, S/O LATE SUBBA RAO, AGED 56 YEARS, R/O DD.NO. 19-22, INDUSTRIAL COLONY, DOWLESWARAM, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM RURAL MANDAL, EAST DISTRICT. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA WRIT PETITION No: 8150 of 2018 KAPPALA SATYAVENI, W/O PAUL, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, 170, BOMMURU, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM RURAL MANDAL, EAST GODAWARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRL.SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, KAKINADA. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. THE TAHSILDAR, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM RURAL MANDAL, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. JANNU PAPARAO, S/O LATE SUBBA RAO, AGED 56 YEARS, R/O 22, INDUSTRIAL COLONY, DOWLESWARAM, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM RURAL MANDAL, EAST ...RESPONDENT(S): IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3209] TUESDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA KAPPALA SATYAVENI, W/O PAUL, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, 170, BOMMURU, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM RURAL ...PETITIONER THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRL.SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM, THE TAHSILDAR, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM RURAL MANDAL, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. JANNU PAPARAO, S/O LATE SUBBA RAO, AGED 56 YEARS, R/O 22, INDUSTRIAL COLONY, DOWLESWARAM, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM RURAL MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. Mr.K.SATYANAND FOR Mr.T.V.JAGGI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE (AP) 2. Mr.P.SAI AVINASH FOR Mr.T.V.S.PRABHAKARA RAO 3 The Court made the following Order: The present writ petition is filed aggrieved by the Communication dated 17.02.2018 addressed by the 4th respondent to the Inspector of Police, Bommuru Police Station and to declare the same as illegal, arbitrary etc., and for a consequential direction to set aside the said communication. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions with reference to the averments made in the writ petition and the contentions raised therein. He submits that there is an ongoing dispute with regard to land of an extent of 84 Sq.yds., in R.S.No.46/4 of Bommuru village. While the civil litigation is pending between the parties, he submits that pursuant to the Letter dated 31.10.2017 addressed by the Inspector of Police, Bommuru, the 4th respondent addressed the impugned letter / communication mentioning that the above said property is vested with the 5th respondent. He submits that the 4th respondent claims to have examined the Registered Gift Deeds and Sale Deeds as also the orders passed by the Civil Court to arrive at a conclusion in favour of the 5th respondent which is unsustainable in Law. In elaboration, he submits that the though 4th respondent usurping the jurisdiction of a Civil Court, addressed the said communication. 3. Though a counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of the 4th respondent and the learned Assistant Government Pleader sought to sustain the impugned communication and his arguments are supported by the learned counsel for the 5th respondent, this Court is not inclined to appreciate the same. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the 4th respondent 4 exceeded his jurisdiction in examining the Registered Gift Deeds and Sale Deeds in respect of the subject matter property. Through the impugned communication, he decided the rights in favour of the 5th respondent as if he is having the powers of a Civil Courts which is not sustainable in Law. 4. For the said reasons, the Communication dated 17.02.2018 is quashed. Needless to observe that the parties to the lis may work out their remedies before the competent Court of Law. This Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits or otherwise of the claims of both sides. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________ NINALA JAYASURYA, J Date: 18.11.2025 BLV 5 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA W.P.No.8150 of 2018 Date: 18.11.2025 BLV