[3505 ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 12668 OF 2022 Between: P. Kanneyya, S/o. Late P. efodeyya, Aged about 81 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. D.No.1-51, Peddha Thayyuru H/W, Chinna Thayyuru, Srirangarajapuram Mandal, Cliittoor District, A.P.-517167. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh^, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, at Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. The District Collector, Chittoor, Chittoor District. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. 4. The Tahsildar, Tirupathi (Urban) Mandal, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed 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 in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of respondent no.4 in interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner with reference to land admeasuring Acs.0.37 cents in Survey No.698/2 of Tirupathi Village, Chandragiri Taluk, Chittoor District which one was assigned in favour of the writ petitioner vide D.K.T. Patta No.314/4/1385 dated 14.09.1975, without following due process of law, being bad, illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and offerice Articles 14 & 300-A of Constitution of India and consequentially to direct the respondents 2 to 4 not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner without following due process of law. lA NO: 1 OF 2022 7 ' 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 direct the respondents 2 to 4 not to interfere the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner with admeasuring Acs.0.37 cents with reference land in Survey No.698/2 of Tirupathi Village, Chandragiri Taluk, Chittoor District which was assigned in favour of the writ petitioner vide D.K.T. Patta No.3i4/4/1385 dated 14.09.1975. Counsel for the Petitioner(s):SRI. Counsel for the Petitioner(s):SRI. VENKATASUBBAIAH V Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following APHCI)10214132022 ilLiiril COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATi (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3505] WEDNESDAY .THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 12668/2022 Between: ...PETITIONER P Kanneyya AND ...RESPONDENT(S) The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.VENKATASUBBAIAH V Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR REVENUE 9^ The Court made the following order: The petitioner claims that he was issued DKT patta vide proceedings No.314/4/1385, dated 14.09.1975 in respect of land admeasuring an extent of Acs.0.37 cents in Sy.No.698/2 of Tirupathi Village, Chandragiri Taluk, Chittoor District. 1. It is further case of the petitioner that since then he 2. has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject lands and eking out livelihood by cultivating the same. It is further stated that his name was mutated in revenue records and he was issued pattadar passbooks. It is further case of the petitioner that he also paid land revenue. Along with the writ petition, the petitioner has filed copies of DKT patta, pattadar passbooks, Adangals and receipts of payment of land revenue in respect of subject land. It is the case of the petitioner that while so, on 3. 19.04.2022 respondents 2 to 4 have entered into the lands of the petitioner and started taking measurements, when the same was questioned by him, he was informed that the subject land is required for allotment of house sites to the eligible beneficiaries. As the respondents tried to interfere with the possession of the petitioner without issuing any notice and without following due process of law, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition. The 4*^ respondent-Tahsildar filed counter affidavit stating that there was no record available in his office evidencing that the DKT patta issued in favor of the petitioner. It is further stated that the petitioner is not a resident of Tirupati Village and at present, he is residing at Thayyuru village of S.R.Puram Mandal, Chittoor District, which is at about 60 kms from Tirupati. It is further contended that the DKT patta relied on by the petitioner is fake and concocted document. It is further stated that, the 4. petitioner is not in possession of the land in dispute. The subject land is classified as AWD as per revenue records and it is vested with the Government. Therefore, the question of interfering with the possession of the petitioner does not arise. It is also stated th that the 4 respondent issued notices in Form-1 dated 30.04.2022, 20.05.2022 and 17.06.2022 asking the petitioner to appear before him along with the original record to substantiate his right over the subject lands. It is further averred that despite issuance of notices the petitioner did not choose to appear before the 4**^ respondent thereby it is presumed that the petitioner does not have valid documents in support of his case and prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 5. The petitioner filed reply affidavit denying the averments made in the counter affidavit and reiterated the fact that the 4'*^ respondent without even looking into the records or calling for the records from erstwhile Chandragiri Taluk, filed counter affidavit by denying the DKT patta issued in his favour. 6. Heard Sri V.Venugopal Rao, learned Senior Counsel representing on behalf of Sri V.Venkata Subbaiah, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents. 7. Perused the material available on record. On perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and the documents filed along with the same, it would 8. clearly establish that the petitioner was assigned DKT patta for an extent of Ac.0.37 cents in Sy.No.698/2 of Tirupathi Village by proceedings dated 14.09.1975. Further, the respondents also issued pattadar passbook by duly mutating the name of the petitioner in revenue records. The said factum of issuance of DKT patta and mutation of name of the petitioner is not denied by the respondents in their counter affidavit expect stating that the records pertaining to the land in question are not available in the office of the 4'^^ respondent. Further, as on the date of assignment, the subject 9. land was situated within the jurisdiction of erstwhile Chandragiri Taluk. The counter affidavit is filed by the Tahsildar, Tirupati Urban Mandal in view of the fact that presently the subject land is under the jurisdiction of the respondent. On a reading of the averments made in the counter affidavit, it is succinctly clear that the 4'*^ respondent did not make any effort to see that records are called for from erstwhile Chandragiri Taluk nor it is averred that he has undertaken such effort before making such statement in th the counter affidavit. Therefore, the contention of the 4 respondent that the DKT patta issued in favour of the petitioner is fake and fabricated, cannot be believed for the reason that the petitioner has filed all the documents to show that he was issued the same and his name was also mutated in revenue records and proof evidencing the same is also filed along with the writ petition. It is pertinent to mention that as the 4*^ respondent tried to interfere with the possession of the petitioner’s land 10. without issuing any notice, the present writ petition is filed and curiously the 4*^ respondent issued notice in Form-1 dated 30.04.2022, 20.05.2022 and 17.06.2022 asking the petitioner to appear before him along with all original documents in support of his claim. When the matter is pending adjudication, the 4 respondent issued the above notices. It is further averred in the counter affidavit that in view of the fact that the petitioner did not appear before him in pursuance of the said notice, he presumed that the petitioner does not have any valid documents in support of his claim. As already noted supra, along with the writ petition, the petitioner filed all the documents showing the factum of issuance of DKT patta in his favour and also the revenue records reflecting his name. Despite the same, the 4*^ respondent has stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner has no documents in support of his claim. The said averment by the 4 respondent is without any merit or substance. Therefore no credence can be given the said averments. th 1 th This Court, while ordering notice by order dated 06.05.2022, directed the parties to maintain status quo existing as on that day and the same is extended from time to time and it is 11. subsisting till today. 12. In view of the reasons recorded supra, the Writ Petition is allowed directing the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner except in accordance with law. It is further made clear that if the respondents want to initiate any action, the same has to be done after putting the petitioner on notice. 13. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel. Miscellaneous Applications, if any, pending shall also stand dismissed. Sd/- K TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SE^ON OFFICER To 1. The Principal Secretary, State of Andhra Pradesh. Department, Secretariat, at Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. The District Collector, Chittoor, Chittoor District. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. 4. The Tahsildar, Tirupathi (Urban) Mandal, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. 5. One CC to SRI VENKATASUBBAIAH V Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 7. Three CD Copies Revenue HIGH COURT DATED:26/03/2025 ORDER WP.No.12668 of 2022 THE WRIT PETITION IS ALLOWED WITHOUT COSTS