[3505 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY .THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 13614 OF 2020 & 29820 OF 2023 WRIT PETITION NO: 13614 OF 2020 Between: 1. T. Suresh Babu (Died) as per L.R., S/o Late T. Rama Subbaiah, aged 40 years, Occupation: Coolie, R/o Kothacheruvu Village and Mandal, Ananthapur District, Andhra Pradesh 2. T. Vedavathi, W/o late T. Suresh Babu, Aged 29 years. R/o 5/315, Isuka Vanka, Kothacheruvu Village and Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District (formerly Ananthapur District), Andhra Pradesh. 3. T. Sai Leela, W/o Late T. Rama Subbaiah, Aged 67 years, R/o 5/315, Isuka Vanka, Kothacheruvu Village and Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District (formerly Ananthapur District), Andhra Pradesh. Petitioners 2 and 3 are brought on record as L.R.s to the deceased sole petitioner as per the Court’s Order, dt. 06.12.2023 vide order passed I.A.1 of 2023. in ...Petitioners AND 1. The State of A.P., Rep. by its PrI. Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh. 2. The District Collector, Ananthapur, Ananthapur District. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kadiri, Ananthapur District. 4. The Tahsildar, Puttaparthi Mandal, Puttaparthi, Ananthapur District ...Respondents 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 appropriate writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents (1) in not mutpting the Petitioners name in the Revenue Records in respect of the land in 'Sy. No. 221-1 an extent of Ac. 1-60 cts of Kappalabanda Village, f^tittaparthi Mandal, Ananthapur District, (2) taking steps to dispossess the t Petitioner from the land for allotment to SEZ without issuing Notice and without following the procedure under the Act 30 of 2013 is illegal, arbitrary in violation of principles of natural justice and in violation of Article 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents not to disposes the Petitioner from the land in Sy. No. 221-1 an extent of Ac. 1-60 cts of Kappalabanda Village, Puttaparthi Mandal, Ananthapur District without following the procedure contemplated under the Act 30 of 2013 in the interest of justice. lA NO: 1 OF 2020 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 direct the Respondents not to disposes the Petitioner from the land in Sy. No. 221-1 an extent of Ac. 1-60 cts of Kappalabanda Village, Puttaparthi Mandal, Ananthapur District without following the procedure contemplated under the Act 30 of 2013; Counsel for the Petitioners:SRI. VENKATA SUBBAIAH POGULA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE WRIT PETITION NO: 29820 OF 2023 Between: M. Ramesh Naik, S/o.M.Narasimha Naik, Aged about 45 years, Occ: Cultivation, R/o.D.No.8-439, SSS Hospital, Prasarithi Village, Puttaparthi Mandal, Sri Sathya Sai District Erstwhile Anantapur District. ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, At velagapudi, Amaravathi, A.P. 2. The District Collector, Sri Sathya Sai District Erstwhile Anantapur District. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sri Sathya Sai District Erstwhile Anantapur District. 4. The Mandal Tahasildar, Puttaparthi Mandal, Sri Sathya Sai District Erstwhile Anantapur District. ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court be pleased to issue an order, writ or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India declaring the action of the respondents in seeking dispossession of the petitioner from his landed property admeasuring an extent of Ac. 1.60 cents in Sy.No.221- 1 situated at Kappalabanda village, Puttaparthi Mandal, Sri Sathya Sai District Erstwhile Anantapur District without following any procedure known to law as illegal, arbitrary and against to principles of natural justice without following any procedure known to law as illegal and against to principles of natural justice and violative of Article 14, 19(1)(g), 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India. lA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioners from his property in an extent of Ac. 1.60 cents in Sy.No.221-1 situated at Kappalabanda village, Puttaparthi Mandal, Sri Sathya Sai District Erstwhile Anantapur District. Counsel for the PetitionerrSRI. P NARAHARI BABU Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: may 1 APHC010207572020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH ATAMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3505] TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NOS: 13614 OF 2020 & 29820 OF 2023 WRIT PETITION NO: 13614/2020 Between: T. Suresh Babu (died) and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State of A P and Others Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. VENKATA SUBBAIAH POGULA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR REVENUE WRIT PETITION NO: 29820/2023 ...RESPONDENT(S) Between: M Ramesh Naik ...PETITIONER AND The State of Andhra Pradesh and others Counselfor the Petitioner: ...RESPONDENT(S) 1.P NARAHARI BABU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR REVENUE 2 The Court made the following COMMON ORDER: As the subject matter of the both writ petitions is one and the same, they are being disposed of by this common order. The petitioners in W.P.No.13614 of 2020 claim that originally, land admeasuring an extent of Ac. 1.60 cents in Sy.No.22-1 of Kappalabanda Village, Puttaparthi Mandal, Ananthapur District, was assigned in favour of one Sri.T.Ramasubbaiah, the father of the 1®‘ petitioner herein, on 24.06.1978 by the 4**^ respondent. It is further case of the petitioners that during his life time, he was in possession and enjoyment of the said land and subsequently, he expired in the year 2004. The 1®' petitioner, being the son of original assignee, came into possession of the subject land and he made representations to the 4'^ respondent seeking to issue pattadar passbooks in his favour. It is further case of the petitioners that he came to know that one 2. Sri Patnayak’s name was mutated in the revenue records over the subject th land. On coming to know about the same, the petitioners approached the 4 respondent to enquire into the matter, as to how the name of the Patanayak was entered into revenue records. In turn, the 4*'^ respondent informed the 1 St petitioner stating that the subject land is required for the purpose of establishment of Special Economical Zone. In those circumstances, the petitioner also made an application seeking to mutate his name in revenue records. The said application was not taken up for enquiry and no orders were 3 passed. Questioning the same, the petitioners approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. ■J' On the other hand, the 4'*^ respondent filed counter affidavit stating that the land admeasuring an extent of Ac.8.62 cents in Sy.No.221 is classified as AW and subsequently the same was sub-divided and assigned in favour of 3. landless poor persons. The counter affidavit further reads that in respect of Adangals pertaining to the year 2010, the name of one Sri.Patnayak was entered as pattadar in respect of land admeasuring an extent of Ac.1.60 cents in Sy.No.221-1. Subsequently, the same was acquired by following the procedure contemplated under G.O.Ms.No.259 Assignment-1 Dept., dated 21.06.2016, for the purpose of distribution of house site pattas to the eligible beneficiaries under “Navaratnalu-Pedalandariki lllu” scheme. The counter affidavit further states that the 1®‘ petitioner was never in possession of the land in dispute and the same is evident on perusal of revenue records inasmuch as one Sri Patnayak’s name was recorded as pattadar. The counter affidavit further reads that initially, the subject land was assigned in favour of the father of the 1®* petitioner and the same was subsequently resumed by the Tahsildar long ago. Though it is stated in the counter affidavit that the subject land was resumed from the father of the 1®' petitioner, conspicuously, the counter affidavit is silent with regard to the date on which the resumption order was passed nor was any procedure contemplated under the Act followed before initiating any action. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue would submit that the 4. records pertaining to the subject lands are not available and inasmuch as the same was burnt during the agitation that occurred in view of the assassination of the local MLA. 5. The petitioners filed reply affidavit. Along with the reply, they have filed copy of the DKT patta dated 24.06.1978 issued in favour of the 1^' petitioner’s father. Apart from the reflected in the revenue records. same, the name of the original assignee was also 6. The petitioner in W.P.No.29820 of 2023 claims that he is the absolute owner and possessor of land admeasuring an extent of Ac. 1.60 cents in Sy.No.221-1 of Kappalabanda Village, Puttaparthi Mandal, Sri Sathya Sai District. It is his further case that the 4*^ respondent assigned the said land in his favour by virtue of proceedings in DAR.DISNo.216/1413 dated 13.12.2004. He further claims that since the date of grant, he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. In support of his claim, he filed copy of DKT patta issued by the 4*^ respondent. It is further case of the petitioner that he approached the 4"" respondent during the year 2014 seeking to issue pattadar passbooks in his favour and it was considered and he again approached the 4 respondent by making an application in Form 6A on 04.11.2023 through APOnline vide application No.TMUT231104025671 seeking to mutate his name in revenue records and to issue pattadar passbooks. When the said application was pending consideration, it is stated that on 09.11.2023, the Mandal Surveyor came to the subject land and started taking when the same was questioned, he was informed that the petitioner will be dispossessed from the subject lands. Questioning the said action of the measurements i I 5 respondents in trying to dispossess the petitioner without issuing any notice or following procedure contemplated under law, the present writ petition is filed. This Court, while ordering notice, by order dated 17.11.2023, directed both the parties to maintain status quo existing as on that day. The said 7. interim order is subsisting till today. The learned Government Pleader for Revenue placed instructions dated 8. 30.12.2024 furnished by the 4*^ respondent. The said instructions are placed on record. On perusal of the same, it is clear that originally, the land was assigned in favour of one Sri.T.Ramasubbaiah, S/o.Akkanna and subsequently the same was resumed from him. The instructions further reads that later the name of one Sri.Patnayak was entered into revenue records over the subject lands. It is further stated in the instructions that the petitioner is no way concerned with the lands in dispute and he does not have any right over the same and prayed to dismiss the writ petition. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.13614 of 2020 & 9. W.P.No.29820 of 2023 and learned Government Pleader for Revenue. Perused the material available on record. It is not in dispute that the father of the 1®‘ petitioner in W.P.No.13614 of 2020 was assigned land admeasuring an extent of Ac. 1-60 cents in Sy.No.221-1 of Kappalabanda Village. The counter affidavit further reads that the assignment made in his favour was subsequently cancelled and the land was resumed. Though it is stated that the assignment made in favor of the petitioner in W.P.No.13614 of 2020 was cancelled, the 10. St father of the 1 6 respondents have not placed anything on record to show that they have passed a r&sumption order nor the date of resumption order is mentioned in the counter affidavit. It is also not known whether the respondents have followed the procedure contemplated under Act 9 of 1977 before passing such resumption order. In the absence of any material placed before this Court, the contention of the respondents cannot be countenanced. Coming to the case of petitioner in W.P.No.29820 of 2023, he claims 11. that he was assigned the subject land by virtue of DKT patta issued on 13.12.2004 by the Tahsildar concerned. In support of his claim, he has filed DKT patta issued in his favour along with the writ petition. On the other hand. learned Government Pleader for Revenue would submit that the petitioner is a complete stranger and denies the issuance of the DKT patta in his favour, and prayed to dismiss the writ petition. Taking into consideration of the submissions made by both counsel and pleadings in the above writ petitions, it is not in dispute that originally the subject land was assigned in favor of the father of the 1®* petitioner in W.P. No.13614 of 2020. Though, the respondents have stated that the said assignment was cancelled, nothing is placed on record to substantiate their contention. Further, the alleged date of cancellation was also not mentioned in the counter affidavit. The respondents have stated that the records pertaining to the subject land was burnt during the agitation which happened after the assassination of local peoples representative. Therefore, in the absence of any record, the contention of the respondents cannot be believed. 12. 7 Further, it is the specific case of the petitioner in WP.No.29820 of 2023 13. that, he was granted DKT patta on 13.12.2004 over the subject lands. As already noted supra along with the writ petition he filed copy of the DKT patta issued in his favor. In view of the rival claims between the parties, this Court is not inclined to go into the merits of the matter. Further, it is for the Tahsildar concerned to conduct a discrete enquiry into the matter and pass appropriate orders as to the rival claims made by both parties. 14. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are disposed of directing the Tahsildar to conduct enquiry into the matter and pass appropriate orders within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. It is needless to mention that, the Tahsildar is directed to afford opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Till appropriate orders are passed, both parties are directed to maintain status quo. 15. With the above directions the writ petitions are disposed of. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- N NAGAMiVIA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To The Principal Secretary, State of Andhra Pradesh, SRevenue , Secretariat Buildings, At velagapudi, Amaravathi, A.P. 1. Department (BY SPECIAL MESSENGER) 2. The District Coiiector, Sri Sathya Sai District Erstwhile Anantapur District. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sri Sathya Sai District Erstwhile Anantapur District. The Mandal Tahasildar, Puttaparthi Mandal, Sri Sathya Sai District Erstwhile Anantapur District. (Addresses Nos.2 to 4 by RPAD) One CC to SRI. VENKATA SUBBAIAH POGULA Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE .High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] One CC to SRI. P NARAHARI BABU Advocate [OPUC] Three CD Copies 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. HIGH COURT DATED:08/04/2025 ORDER WP.No.13614 of 2020 & 29820 OF 2023 S U JUN 2025 S DISPOSING THE WRIT PETITION