Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 44305 (AP)

KILLADA RAMAKRISHNA v. The State of Andhra Pradesh,

WP/9525/2025 · 2025-04-09

Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda

Original Suitbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010183892025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] THURSDAY ,THE TENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 9525/2025 Between: Killada Ramakrishna and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. T V SRI DEVI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO:9525/2025 ORDER: The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following relief: “to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus declaring 1) the action of the 3rd respondent in initiating proceedings for cancellation of pattadar passbooks issued to petitioners in respect of petitioners land to an extent of Ac.0.38 cts (in two bits Ac.0.36 Cts and Ac.0.02 cts) in Sy.No.210 and Ac.0.37 cents in Sy.No.210 of Balighattam Village, Narsipatnam Mandal, Anakapalli District by issuing notice in R.O.R.R.C.No.87/2025/C.S/Dt.01.04.2025 when the matter is seized by Civil Court and pending before the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Narsipatnam in O.S.No.335 of 2024 and contrary to the order passed by the Mandal Legal Cell committee headed by 3rd respondent signed on 15.02.2025 as illegal, unjust, arbitrary and violative of Art 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and provisions of A.P. ROR Act, 2) to declare the action of the 4th respondent in directing the petitioners orally not to enter into their lands situated in an extent of Ac.0.38 cts (in two bits AC.0.36 Cts and Ac.0.02 cts) in Sy.No.210 and Ac.0.37 cents in Sy.No.210 of Balighattam Village Narsipatnam Mandal, Anakapalli District in respect of which the Principal Junior Civil Judge Narsipatnam granted interim injunction in favour of petitioners in I.A.No.427 of 2024 in O.S.No.335 of 2024 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Art 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and pass such other order or orders….” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners herein are the absolute owners and possessors of the lands admeasuring to an extent of Ac.0.38 cents (in two bits AC.0.36 Cents and Ac.0.02 cents) in Sy.No.210 and Ac.0.37 cents in Sy.No.210 of Balighattam Village, Narsipatnam Mandal, Anakapalli District having acquired the same by way of succession. Having considered their possession, respondent No.3 issued patadar pass books and title deeds in their favour and also mutated their names in the online revenue records. While things stood thus, respondent Nos. 5 to 10 without having any right and title over the subject properties are interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject properties of the petitioners, for which, the petitioners herein filed a suit in O.S.No.335 of 2024 seeking for grant of permanent injunction along with I.A.No.427 of 2024 seeking for grant of temporary injunction pending suit, wherein, the trial Court was pleased to grant temporary injunction vide order dated 23.12.2024. Thereafter, without contesting in the suit, respondent Nos. 5 to 10 are approaching respondent Nos. 3 and 4 seeking for cancellation of pattadar pass books and title deeds issued in favour of the petitioners. 4. While the matter stood thus, the Deputy Tahsildar, Balighattam Village issued an Endorsement dated 11.03.2025 stating that respondent Nos. 5, 7 and 8 submitted an application in the grievance cell stating that the land in an extent of Ac.0.75 cents in Sy.No.210 of Balighattam Village belongs to one Nukanna S/o.Killada Mallayya and the same has to be devolved upon his three sons. Further, the said endorsement also disclosed that since the matter is purely civil in nature, cannot be resolved and the same to be resolved in civil court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that despite issuing endorsement, the respondent authorities also issued notice dated 01.04.2025 stating that the respondent No.8 submitted an application to the respondents seeking for cancellation of pattadar pass books issued in favour of the petitioners. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners herein filed the present writ petition. 6. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that since it is only a notice dated 01.04.2025 issued to the petitioners, let there be a direction to the petitioners to submit their explanation to the notice dated 01.04.2025 within a reasonable time and on receipt of such explanation, the respondents would consider the same and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law. 7. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for the respondents and on perusal of the material placed on record, this Court is of the considered view that the present writ petition can be disposed of, directing the petitioners herein to submit their explanation to the notice dated 01.04.2025 issued by the respondent No.3, within a period of three (03) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of such explanation, the respondents are directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders, after considering the claims of the petitioners as well as the other legal heirs of Sri Killada Mallayya by conducting a detailed enquiry and after examining other documents pertaining to family partition between the family members, within a period of four (04) months, thereafter. In the meanwhile, status quo obtaining as on today shall be maintained by all the parties concerned in respect of the subject property. 8. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition shall stand closed. _______________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 10.04.2025 BSP 183 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION No.9525 of 2025 10.04.2025 BSP