THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 778 OF 2021 IN Between: Sagiraju Venkatarama Raju, S/o Konda Narayana Raju, aged about 90 Cultivation, R/o Recherla Village, Chinthalapudi Mandal, 1. years, Hindu West Godavari District. 2 Sagiraju Mallaparaju, S/o Konda Narayana Raju, aged about 76 years, R/o Mankollu Village, Chatrai Mandal, Krishna ^ Hindu, Cultivation District. 3. Sagiraju Narasimha Raju, S/o Konda Narayana Raju, aged about 68 years, Hindu, Cultivation, R/o Mankollu Village, Chatrai Mandal, Krishna District. 4. Sagiraju Sitharamarama Raju, S/o, Konda Narayana Raju, aged about 52 years, Hindu, Cultivation, R/o, Mankollu Village, Chatrai Mandal, Krishna District. ...PETITIONERS AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, . Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Amaravathi. 2. The District Collector, Krishna District at Machilipatnam. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Nuzivid, Krishna District. 4. The Tahsildar, Chatrai Mandal, Krishna District. 5. The Mandal Surveyor, Chatrai Mandal, Krishna District. - 6. Suraneni Vijaya Lakshmi, W/o Narayana Rao, aged about 85 years, Hindu, House wife, R/o Mankollu, Chatrai Mandal, Krishna District. 7. Suraneni Satyavathi, W/o Late Venkata Appa Rao, aged about 65 House wife, R/o Mankollu, Chatrai Mandal, Krishna years, Hindu District. 4 8. Suraneni Prasad, S/o Late Venkata Appa Rao, aged about 43 years, _ Hindu Cultivation, R/o Mankollu, Chatrai Mandal, Krishna District. Suraneni Kalavathi, W/o Late Murali Rao, aged about 63 years, Hindu, ‘ ^^HOuse wife, R/o Mankollu, Chatrai Mandal, Krishna District, tagiri Lavanya, W/o Satyanarayana, aged about 42 years, Hindu, 'use wife, R/o Mankollu, Chatrai Mandal, Krishna District. fA .i- \ j ... ...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 the respondents 4 and 5 undertaking an enquiry to decide the rights of the parties and conduct survey of the property of an extent of Ac. 13.50 cents of dry land (Mango Garden) covered by R. S No. 172/1,172,16 and patta No. 335 of Mankollu Village, Chatrai Mandal, Krishna District at the request of the respondents no.6 to 10 and mutate their names in revenue records and grant Pattadar passbooks and title deeds for the said property despite the suit O.S. No 101/2004 on the file of the Senior'Civil Judge, Nuzivid was filed by the petitioners and an appeal CMA 1/2016 on the file the XV Additional District Judge, Nuzivid is pending for adjudication against the respondents no.6 to 10 for declaration of their title regarding the said property as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and without jurisdiction, besides violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300A of constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to undertake any survey or enquiry regarding the said property and grant Pattadar passbooks or title deeds in favour Of respondents 6 to 10 for the said property. lA NO: 1 OF 2021 Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the proposed enquiry undertaken by the 4 respondents 4 and 5 for deciding the rights of the parties and conducting survey of the property of an extent of Ac. 13.50 cents of dry land (Mango Garden) covered by R. S No. 172/1,172/IB, and patta No. 335 of Mankollu Village, Chatrai Mandal, Krishna District and mutate the names of the respondents 6 to 10 in the revenue records and grant Pattadar passbooks and title deeds in their favour pending disposal of the main writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI MADHAVA RAO NALLURI Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 8 to 10: SRI RAMESH KATIKINENI Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 6 & 7: — The Court made the following: ORDER t- - HTCDS.J WP 778 2021 % 1 APHC010009972021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH ATAMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3505] THURSDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION No.778/2021 Between: Sagiraju Venkatarama Raju, and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petltioner(S): 1.MADHAVA RAO NALLURI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GPFOR REVENUE 2.RAMESH KATIKINENI The Court made the following; HTCDS.J WP 778 2021 2 ORDER:- I- The present writ petition is filed questioning the action of the respondent Nos.4 & 5 in undertaking enquiry to decide the rights of the parties to the writ petition and to conduct survey in respect of land admeasuring an extent of Ac. 13.50 cents in RS No. 172/1 and 172,16 of Mankollu Village, Chatrai Mandal, Krishna District, at the request of respondent Nos.6 to 10 and to mutate their names in the revenue records so as to grant pattadar passbooks and title deeds in favour of respondent Nos.6 1. to 10 despite the suit in OS No. 101 of 2004 is pending, on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Nuzivid. The 4**^ respondent filed counter affidavit stating that the names of the unofficial respondents were mutated in the 2. revenue records in respect of subject lands, during the year 2018. The counter affidavit further averred that at present they did not receive any application from the unofficial respondents and the Tahsildar never instructed the 5 respondent to conduct survey over the lands in dispute. The counter further reads that the unofficial respondents are in possession of the property. HTCDSJ WP 778 2021 3 3. It is further averred in the counter affidavit that the entries in webland adangal in respect of subject lands are not in operation for the present as the digital signature of the Tahsildar was revoked and in view of the same no transactions can be taken up for the subject lands. th In view of the categorical assertions made by the 4 respondent in the counter affidavit that there is no proposal or instructions given by the 5*^ respondent to conduct survey over the subject lands. The cause in the present writ petition does not 4. survive. 5. Accordingly the writ petition is closed. No order as to costs. It is needless to mention that, the parties are directed to agitate their rights in pending suit. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- J. SAROJA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1. One CC to Sri Madhava Rao Nalluri Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Sri RAmesh Katikineni, Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] Three CD Copies 2. 3. 4. TF HIGH COURT DATED:20/03/2025 ORDER g 3 ^ jui m Current Section . WP.No.778 of 2021 CLOSING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS