IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF APRIL i TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE | PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 8185 OF 2022 Between: K. Purushotham, S/o. Pedda Ramappa, aged about 78 years, Occupation : Agriculture, Hindu, R/o. Ramanjulapalli, Dampetia Village, Bathalapalli Mandal, Anantapur District. 515672 ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Department of Revenue, Secretariat, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi. represented by its Principle Secretary 522503 2. The District Collector, Anantapur District, Anantapur, Anantapur Dist.515001 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmavaram, Anantapur Dist.515671 4. The Tahasildar, Bathalapalli Mandal, Mandal Revenue Office, Bathalapalli, Anantapur Dist.515661 5. A Narayana Swamy, S/o Chinna Katamayya, Aged about 40 years, R/o Tejaswini Hotel, Dimila Centre, Rajasekhar Reddy Statue, Thummala Road, Dharmavaram , Sri Sathya $ai District, Pincode 515672. (R5 is impleaded as per the Court Order dt.17.10.2024 vide orders passed in I.A.No.01 of 2024.) ...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 a Writ. Direction, Order or Orders more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents more particularly the action of the 4th respondent in issuing the impugned notice dated 19.01.2022 proceedings in R.C.No.A/13/2022 based on the representation of the strangers as illegal, arbitrary, high handed without authority, without jurisdiction, contrary to the malafide, notice issued by the 4“" respondent himself dated 24.12.2018, contrary to law, void and violation of the Constitutional Rights guaranteed under Art.21 and 300-A of Constitution of same. India and Human Rights and consequently set aside the lA NO: 1 OF 2099 Petition under Section 151 CPC in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased suspend the operation of the impugned notice dated praying that in the circumstances stated to 19.01.2022 proceedings in R.C.No.A/13/2022. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. P SREE RAMULU Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI K. NARSI REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER NAIDU APHC010149742022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) .-■I [3505] I-’ WEDNESDAY ,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 8185/2022 Between; ...PETITIONER K Purushotham AND ...RESPONDENT(S) The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner; 1.PSREE RAMULU NAIDU Counsel for the Respondent(S); 1.GP FOR REVENUE 2.K NARSI REDDY The Court made the following order: The present writ petition is filed questioning notice dated issued by the 4*'' respondent on the representation dated 07.12.2021, made by the 5*^ respondent, on the ground respondent does not have jurisdiction to issue the said notice and the same is also contrary to notice dated 24.12.2018. It is the case of the petitioner that, his wife Smt.Aswarthamma was the absolute owner and possessor of land to an extent of Ac.3.74 cents in Sy.No.288-2A of Dampetla Village, Bathalapalli Mandal, Anantapur District. He further claims that, in recognition the said land she was issued pattadar 19.01.2022, that the 4 of her possession over passbooks and title deeds in respect of the said lands. It is further of the petitioner that, his wife expired on 16.09.2021 and thereafter, the petitioner claims that he came into possession of case the said land. It is further stated that initially, the 4*^^ respondent issued notice dated 24.12.2018, asking the petitioner’s wife to attend for enquiry to be conducted on 29.12.2018 and to submit explanation. It is further stated that, in obedience of the said notice, the petitioner’s wife appeared before the 4*^^ respondent with all relevant records on the said date and thereafter no orders 2. 42} 3 that the 4 is further case of the petitioner were passed. It respondent again representation petitioner to appear was issued on cents was recorded in excess land adangal, when the same is notice based on the in issued impugned respondent and directed the 28.01.2022. The said notice extent of Ac.5.54 made by the 5 before him on the ground that, in Sy.No.288 an of land available on ground in web compared with Diglot. The ina the said notice on the present writ petition is filed questioning ground that the 4* respondent does i inasmuch as, the 4^ respondent wants to decide the the representation made by the 5'^ not have jurisdiction to issue the same title of the petitioner based on respondent. respondent filed counter affidavit explanation, the petitioner present writ petition and the the counter dated 07.12.2021, 3. On the other hand, the 4 stating that, instead of submitting approached this Court by filing the further stated in is not maintainable. It is same is affidavit that, based on the representation impugned notice was issued action in the submitted by the 5* respondent, the irv and to take appropriate to conduct enquiry so as matter. Though the narrating the is filed in elaboration counter affidavit is took place between various transactions that 4 #■ parties, the same are not required for the purpose of deciding the present writ petition. respondent filed counter affidavit stating that his grandfather Sri Asadi Gangappa, purchased land admeasuring extent of Ac.9.27 cents in Sy.No.288-2, by virtue of registered sale deed dated 20.06.1950 vide document No.864/1950. Out of the said extent, his grandfather alienated an extent of Ac.6.18 cents in favor of third parties during the year 1963 and retained extent of Ac.3.09 cents. It is further stated that the 4^^ respondent without properly conducting the enquiry, mutated the of the petitioner’s wife in revenue records. It is further stated that, on perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner did not file any document except the pattada passbooks and revenue records issued in his favor. It is further stated that, nothing is mentioned as to how the petitioner’s wife has got right over the property. It is further contended that, the representation dated 07.12.2021, was made asking the 4^ respondent to identify the remaining land admeasuring of Ac.3.09 cents retained by his grandfather and pursuant to the same, the impugned notice is issued. It is further stated that the writ petition 4. The 5' an an name 5 is not maintainable, inasmuch as, the same is filed against show cause notice. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant 5. th Government Pleader for Revenue and learned counsel for the 5 respondent. Perused the material available on record. 6. On a perusal of impugned notice dated 19.01.2022, it is clear that the same was issued so as to correct the web land adangal in respect of Sy.No.288 of Dampetia Revenue Village, inasmuch as, when the same is compared with Diglot, an extent of Ac.5.54 cents is recorded in web land adangal. On further perusal of the impugned notice, there is a reference to the representation dated 07.12.2021, made by the 5''^ respondent under which a request was made to identify the land admeasuring extent of Ac.3.09 cents in Sy.No.288-2 retained by the 7. an grandfather of the petitioner. The only ground on which the present writ petition is filed is that, the 4‘^ respondent does not have jurisdiction to issue the impugned notice and it is further contended that the same is not referred to any provision of law under which it was issued. As per 8. 6 if th the provisions of Act 26 of 1971, it is the duty of the 4 provided for under Section 4 & made before him respondent to conduct enquiry as 5 of the said Act, whenever a request is claiming irght over the property. In the instant case, the 5 respondent made a representation dated 07.121.2021, requesting respondent to identify the land retained by his grandfather to an extent of Ac.3.09 cents in Sy.No.288-2 of the said village. In ii th th the 4 th thereof, the impugned notice was issued by the 4 pursuance respondent, respondent does not th Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the 4 have jurisdiction to issue the impugned be rejected. Further, instead of submitting petitioner approached this Court against the notice is liable to explanation, the show cause notice. This Court time and again held that writ petition is not 9. maintainable against a show cause notice unless the same hand the petitioner miserably IS without jurisdiction. In the case failed to substantiate his contention. on the writ petition is liable to be to mention that, pursuant to the In view of the same. 10. dismissed. It is needless th dated 19.01.2021, the petitioner and the 5 directed to submit explanation within a period of impugned notice respondent are 7 four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order and thereafter the 4^'^ respondent is directed to dispose of the same, in accordance with law, after affording opportunity of being heard to the parties concerned. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- M SRINIVAS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTTDN OFFICER To, 1. One CC to Sri P. Sree Ramulu Naidu, Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to Sri K. Narsi Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 4. Three CD Copies. ssb high court DATED;30/04/2025 5 0 6 JUf'' 7m f ^ . Currem ^ciion ^ . ORDER WP.No.8185 of 2022 dismissing the w.p. without costs