1 APHC010318662020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3505] WEDNESDAY ,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 21070/2020 Between: S Mehaboob Basha, ...PETITIONER AND State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P NARASIMHULU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. SRINIVAS BASAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 2648/2021 Between: Sri Symagari Narayana Reddy ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 2 1. SRINIVAS BASAVA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. R SUJAN KUMAR 3. P NARASIMHULU 3 The Court made the following common order: 1. Since the subject matter in both the writ petitions is one and the same, they are being disposed of by this common order. W.P.No.21070 of 2020 2. The petitioner claims that he is absolute owner and possessor of land admeasuring an extent of Ac.0.09 cents in Sy.No.430/1A and an extent of Ac.1.88 cents in Sy.No.430/23B of Muntimumadugu Village, Garladinne Mandal, Ananthapuram District. 3. It is his further case that on the eastern side of his land, they is an existing road in an extent of Ac.0.09 cents in Sy.No.430/1A and the said road is being used to reach his agricultural lands and also to the other agricultural lands belonging to the villagers. It is further case of the petitioner that the said land is classified as Road (Rastha) in revenue records. It is further stated that, when the 5th respondent tried to grab the said road by causing inconvenience to the petitioner and as well as to other villagers, he along with others made representations dated 28.09.2020, 05.10.2020 and 30.10.2020, to the respondents to see 4 that no encroachment is made as against the road existing in an extent of Ac.0.09 cents in Sy.No.430/1A. Despite making representations, when there was no action from the respondents, he filed the present writ petition. W.P.No.2648 of 2021 4. It is the case of the petitioner that, he is the absolute owner and possessor of land admeasuring an extent of Ac.1.14 cents in Sy.No.40/1A, an extent of Ac.1.25 cents in Sy.No.430/2C, an extent of Ac.0.47 cents in Sy.No.431/1 and an extent of Ac.2.40 cents in Sy.No.134 of Muntimadugu Village, Garldinne Mandal, Ananthapuru District. 5. It is further case of the petitioner that, the Tahsildar issued pattadar pass books and title deeds in respect of the above lands by mutating his name in revenue records. In support of his case, the petitioner has filed copies of pattdar pass books, 1-B and adangals in respect of the above lands. It is further case of the petitioner that when the 4th respondent tried to interfere with his possession, he filed suit vide OS No.780 of 2019, on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ananthapuram, seeking permanent injunction over the subject land. Along with the said suit he also filed an application vide IA No.135 of 2020 seeking to appoint 5 Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features of the land in question. The said application was allowed and the Advocate Commissioner submitted report on 06.11.2020. In the said report it is categorically stated that there is no road (Rastha) as alleged in an extent of Ac.0.09 cents in Sy.No.430/1A of the village. The said suit is pending adjudication and said the report together with rough plan were marked as Ex.P7 and P9 in the said suit. After filing of the said report, at the instance of the 4th respondent, the 5th respondent filed a writ petition vide WP No.21070 of 2020 against the petitioner, by suppressing the above facts. 7. It is further case of the petitioner that his name was shown as pattadar in respect of land to an extent of Ac.1.14 cents in Sy.No.430-1A for upto the Fasli year 1429 and thereafter the extent of land was reduced from Ac.1.14 cents to Ac.1.05 cents for the Fasli year 1430, and remaining an extent of Ac.0.09 cents was shown as Rastha (road) in adangals. It is further case of the petitioner that, without issuing any notice to him at the instance of the 4th respondent, the 3rd respondent amended the entries in revenue records without issuing notice to the petitioner as if there 6 is an existing road in an extent of Ac.0.09 cents though the same belongs to the petitioner. 8. It is further case of the petitioner that by changing the entries in revenue records, the 3rd respondent tried to interfere with the possession of the petitioner and threatened to remove the fencing around the subject land. Questioning the said action, the present writ petition is filed. 9. The Tahsildar filed counter affidavit in both the writ petitions stating that as per the Village Map, there is no Rastha (road) is in existence in an extent of Ac.0.09 cents in Sy.No.430/1A. He further states that as there is no alternative road to the respondent Nos.4 & 5 to enter into their lands and as per the local enquiry he came to know through the village elders that there was a cart track in existence in Sy.No.430/1A of the village and accordingly he made changes in respect of Sy.No.430/1A in revenue records by incorporating Rastha (road) to an extent of Ac.0.09 cents. 10. It is further averred that after the interim order dated 11.11.2020, passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.21070 of 2020, a notice was issued to the 4th respondent to see that no encroachment is made over the land in dispute i.e., in respect of 7 land in an extent of Ac.0.09 cents in Sy.No.430/1 situated at Muntiumadugu Village, Garladinne Mandal, Ananthapuram District. With the above contentions, the Tahsildar prayed to dismiss the writ petition vide W.P.No.2648 of 2021. 11. Heard counsel for the petitioner in both the writ petitions and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. 12. Perused material available on record. 13. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to as arrayed in writ petition No.2648 of 2021. 14. It is the case of the 5th respondent that there is an existing road in an extent of Ac.0.09 cents in Sy.No.430/1A. The petitioner tried to obstruct the 5th respondent and other villagers, he made representations and when the same were not considered, he approached this Court. In support of his contention, he filed copy of adangal dated 28.10.2020 for the Fasli year 1430 to show the subject land is classified as “Rastha” in revenue records. 15. On the other hand the counsel for the petitioner strenuously contend that the 3rd respondent without issuing notice, amended/changed the entries in revenue records in respect of Sy.No. 430/1A for the fasli year 1430. He would further contend that his name was shown as pattadar in respect of land 8 admeasuring an extent of Ac.1.14 cents in the said survey number up to 1429 fasli. Thereafter, the extent was reduced to Ac.1.05 cents and the remaining extent of Ac.0.09 cents was shown as rastha. Further, the 3rd respondent has categorically admitted in the counter affidavit that as per the village plan there is no road (rastha) is in existence in Sy.No.430/1A. He admitted in the counter affidavit that after conducting local enquiry, he came to know through village elders that there was a cart track in the said survey number and based on the said information, he changed the revenue entries in respect of Sy.No.430/1A to an extent of Ac.0.09 cents by recording the same as rastha. It is not in dispute that the 3rd respondent did not issue any notice before changing the revenue records. Therefore, the action of 3rd respondent cannot be countenanced. 16. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner has filed suit in OS.No.780 of 2019, on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ananthapuram, against the 4th respondent. In the said suit Advocate Commissioner was appointed to note down the physical features of the subject land. In pursuance thereof, a report was filed by the Advocate Commissioner stating that there is no existence of road in Sy.No.430/1A. After filing of the said report, at 9 the instance of 4th respondent, writ petition vide WP No.21070 of 2020 was filed by the 5th respondent by suppressing the above facts. On consideration of the submissions made by both counsel and on appreciation of the material available on record, it is clear that the 3rd respondent without issuing notice to the petitioner, changed the revenue records in respect of Sy.No.430/1A as road in an extent of Ac.0.09 cents and tried to interfere with the possession of the petitioner. 17. The entire action of the 3rd respondent in changing the revenue records is illegal and also violation of principles of natural justice. It is pertinent to mention that the name of the petitioner is recorded as pattadar in respect of land admeasuring an extent of Ac.1.14 cents in Sy.No.430/1A, the 3rd respondent unilaterally without issuing notice to the petitioner, changed the entries thereon, as if there is existence of road in an extent of Ac.0.09 cents in the said survey number for the fasli 1430. Taking advantage of the said illegal entry made by the 3rd respondent, the 5th respondent filed writ petition vide WP No.21070 of 2020, at the instance of 4th respondent, suppressing the above facts. 10 18. In view of the above findings, there are no merits in the writ petition vide W.P.No.21070 of 2020 and accordingly the same is dismissed. 19. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition vide WP No.2648 of 2021 is disposed of, directing the respondents not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner over an extent of Ac.1.14 cents in Sy.No.430/1A. The 3rd respondent is further directed to mutate the name of the petitioner in respect of land admeasuring an extent of Ac.1.14 cents in Sy.No.430/1A by deleting the entry “rastha” in respect of the said survey number. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________ JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR 30.04.2025 DR 11 119 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR WP No.21070 of 2020 & WP No.2648 of 2021 Date 30.04.2025 DR