IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 7885 OF 2025 Between: 1. U Manohar, S/o. Subbaiah, Aged about 68 years, R/o. D.No.51/140-40- 1, NGO Colony, Rayachoti, Annamayya District 2. Talari Venkata Lakshumma, W/o. Late Talari Narasimhulu, Aged about 52 years, R/o. D.No.44/37-5-10, Bhagath Singh Nagar, Utukur, Kadapa 3. Talari Naresh Kumar, S/o. Late Talari Narasimhulu, Aged about 38 years, R/o. D.No.44/37-5-10, Bhagath Singh Nagar, Utukur, Kadapa 4. Boya Jayalakshmi, D/o. Late Talari Narasimhulu, Aged about 37 years, R/o. D.No.44/37-5-10, Bhagath Singh Nagar, Utukur, Kadapa 5. Talari Varalakshmi, D/o. Late Talari Narasimhulu, Aged about 35 R/o. D.No.44/37-5-10, Bhagath Singh Nagar, Utukur, Kadapa 6. Chowdam Rajkumar, S/o. Ramakrishna, Aged about 52 years, R/o. Plot No. 110, Murali Nagar, Visakhapatnam years. ...Petitioners AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, A.P. Secretariat at Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District 2. The District Collector, Annamayya District, Rayachoti 3. The Joint Collector, Annamayya District, Rayachoti 4. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Rayachoti Division, Annamayya District 5. The Tahsildar, Rayachoti Mandal, Annamayya District 6. E.V. Maheswar Reddy, S/o. Not known, R/o. Khajipet Village and Mandal, YSR Kadapa 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 a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of 3''^ Respondent in issuing Notices bearing Ref. No. E1/2184/2024 dated 1.1.2025 and 15.2.2025, by exercising its Revisional Jurisdiction directly under Section 9 of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 and BSO 15 (18) (1) of the Board Standing Orders, at this length time as illegal, arbitrary, violative of the provisions of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 and also the notified Board Standing Orders thereunder, violative of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, contrary to the law laid down in 2025 (1) ALT 1 (DB) (AP) and thereby be pleased to consequentially direct the Respondents No.3, 4 and 5 to consider the DKT / Assignment Pattas granted by the very same authorities way back in 2010 and pass orders in accordance with law. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 suspend the proceedings pursuant to the Notices in Ref.No.E1/2184/2024, dt. 1.1.2025 & 15.2.2025 of the Respondent No.3 pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and pass such other or further orders as it may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the pending disposal of the above Writ Petition. case Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. W.V.B. SHRAVAN, Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: APHC010149012025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 7885/2025 Between: U Manohar and Others ...PETITIONER{S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT{S) Counsel for the Petitioner{S): 1.W.V.B. SHRAVAN. Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: order: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: ^to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of 3rd Respondent in issuing Notices bearing Ref No E1/2184/2024 dated 1.1.2025 and 15.2.2025 by exercising its Revisional Jurisdiction directly under Section 9 of the A P Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act 1971 and BSO 15 (18) (1) of the Board Standing Orders at this length time as illegal arbitrary violative of the provisions of the A P Assigned Lands Prohibition of Transfers Act 1977 and also the notified Board Standing Orders thereunder violative of Article 300A of the Constitution of India contrary to the law laid down in 2025 1 ALT 1 DB AP and thereby be pleased to consequentially direct the Respondents No 3 4 and 5 to consider the DKT / Assignment Pattas granted by the very same authorities way back in 2010 and pass orders in accordance with law and to pass such...” 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners granted DKT/assignment pattas in the year 2010 and pattadar passbooks, land title deeds were also issued in their favour. The revenue entries in the adangal reflect that the petitioners are pattadars and they were in possession of their respective lands, which were assigned to them. While things stood thus, pursuant to a complaint filed by a third party, the 4th and 5th respondents conducted an enquiry and submitted a report to the 2nd respondent without following the due process of law, as contemplated under were Section 9 of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbook Act, 1971, read with BSO 15 (18)(1) of the Board Standing Orders. Based on the report submitted by the 4th and 5‘^ respondents, the 2nd respondent exercised suo motu revisional powers and issued notices dated 01.01.2025 and 15.02.2025, directing the petitioners to submit their explanations as to why the pattas granted in their favour should not be cancelled. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that, any patta is to be cancelled, the prescribed procedure as contemplated should as per BSO 15, if be strictly followed. However, in the present case, the 2nd respondent, without adhering to the mandatory procedure for cancellation pattas, directly invoked revisional powers. This, in effect, deprived the petitioners from their statutory right to appeal and revision. Therefore, the notices issued by the 2nd respondent are liable to be set aside. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for 5. Revenue, appearing for the respondents, submits that Section 9 of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbook Act, 1971, empowers the 2nd respondent to invoke suo motu revisional powers if the authority is satisfied that the subject assignment was made in violation of the Assignment Rules. He submits that the petitioners are at liberty to submit their explanations and supporting documents before the 2nd respondent, and the same will be duly considered. He further argues that the powers conferred under Section 9 of the Act cannot be overridden or limited by BSO 15. 6. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents, and perused the material on record. In fact, the impugned notices were issued by 1 J r the 2nd respondent by exercising suo motu revisional powers under Section 9 of the Act, 1971. As contended by the petitioners, the action of cancellation of pattas by the 2^^ respondent is contrary to BSO 15 lacks merit, as BSO 15 does not override the statutory powers conferred under Section 9 of the A P Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act 1971. More so, the procedureas envisaged under BSO 15 is adhered by the competent authority, whereas the an advisory and customary guidelines to be power conferred under section 9 of the Act 1971 is a substantive statutory power. Therefore, i settle proposition of law that the it is \ power conferred under statutory power rides the procedure contemplated under advisory over guidelines/customary procedural executive rules, the petitioners are entitled to submit their explanations and supporting documents in their defense before the 2nd respondent within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon such submission, the 2nd respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and all other concerned parties. within a period of three (03) months thereafter. 7. With the above said direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, petition shall stand closed. if any, pending in the writ Sd/- M. SRINIVAS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1- The Principal Secretary, State of Andhra Pradesh Department, A.P. Secretariat District. Revenue at Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur 2. The District Collector, Annamayya District, 3. The Joint Collector, Annamayya District 4. The Revenue Divisional Officer, r 5. The Tahsildar, Rayachoti Mandal, Rayachoti. Rayachoti. Rayachoti Division, Annamayya District . Annamayya District. 6. E.V. Maheswar Reddy, R/o. Khajipet Village and Mandal, YSR Kadapa District 7. One CC to SRI. W.V.B. SHRAVAN, Advocate [OPUC] 8. Two CCS to GP FOR REVENUE .High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 9. Three CD Copies sree HIGH COURT \N DATED:27/03/2025 ORDER WP.No.7885 of 2025 ^ 7 ? SFP 2025 m Current beciion DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS