APHC010319512024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI iX: o WEDNESDAY,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF OCTOB^ TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM ^ ymiT APPEAL NO: 639. 642. 643. 644. 645. 646 AND 964 OF 2024 WRIT APPEAL NO: 639 OF 2024 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the orders passed in WP.No.22886/2020 dated 10.05.2024 on the file of the High Court. Between: 1. Mamidi Srinivas, S/o.M. Bhaskar Rao, aged 59 years, R/o. Bhavani Towers, Swathi Theatre Road, Bhavanipuram, Vijayawada District, Andhra Pradesh. 2. VezzuUmamaheswara Rao, S/o. VezzuVittal Mohan Rao, years, R/o. D.No. 54-16-10/5, H.No.21 Nagar, Near Loyola College, Vijayawada, Krishna District Pradesh. Krishna aged 51 Road No. 2, Venkateswara Andhra ...Petitioners AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep, by its Principal Secretary Revenue Department, (ROR), Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh. 2. The District Collector, Krishna District at Machilipatnam. 3. The Joint Collector and Add! District Magistrate Machitipatnam. 4. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Nuzvid, Krishna District. 5. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Nuzvid Mandal, Nuzvid 6. Kakumanu Sravanthi Devi, W/o. Suryaprakash Employees colony, TS Genco Colony Warangal District. Krishna District at' Krishna District. Rao B-4, KTPP, Chelpur, Dhanpur Mandal, . Respondents/Respondents 7. Chinnam Venkata Narayana Rao, Reddigudem (Village and Mandal), Krishna District. S/o. Lakshminarasimha Rao 8. PenugondaHaranadhaBabu, S/o. Rama Rao 9. Gavirineni Satya Vani, W/o. Seshagiri Rao Thukkuluru village, Nuzvid Mandal, Krishna District. Nuzvid, Krishna District. 10. Chinnam Lakshmi Narasimha Rao, S/o. Venkatanarayana Rao Reddigudem (Village and Mandal), Krishna District. Manda Murali Mohan Rao, S/o. Ramaiah, Nuzvid (Village and Mandal), Krishna District. Manda 11. Goduguvarigudem, 12. Vijayalakshmi, W/o. Murali Mohan Goduguvarigudem, Nuzvid (Village and Mandal), Krishna District. Rao, 13. Chinta Gopal Rao, S/o. Venkaiah, Goduguvarigudem, Nuzvid (Village and Mandal), Krishna District. 14. ChinnamNagadurga Prasad, S/o. Pathapeta, Nuzvid, Krishna District. ChinnamVenkatarama Rao, S/o. Pathapeta, Nuzvid, Krishna District. Bhagavathula Lakshmi Mohan Pathapeta, Nuzvid, Krishna District. Manda Sai Krishna, S/o. Venkatanarayana Rao 15. Lakshminarasimha Rao 16. S/o. Venkateswara Rao 17. Late Murali Mohan Goduguvarigudem, Nuzvid (Village and Mandal), Krishna District. Manda Saibabu, S/o. Late Murali Mohan Rao Goduguvarigudem, Nuzvid (Village and Mandal), Krishna District. Rao 18. 19. Thota Rama Devi, W/o. Late Samba Siva Goduguvarigudem, Nuzvid (Village and Mandal), Krishna District. Rao, 20. IllipalliGopinadh, S/o. Anyaneyaswamy temple, Vijayawada, Krishna District. Paidapala Durgarao, S/o. Narayanaswamy, Pithani Applaswamy veedhi. Near NTR School, Kothapeta, Vijayawada, Krishna District Nathani Durgarao, S/o. Tailorpeta, Vijayawada, Krishna District. Appa Rao Kothapeta Near 21. 22. Krishnalal SrinivasaraoVeedhi, 23. Somula Nagireddy, S/o. Kotireddy Krishnalanka Krishna district. Choppara Leha, D/o. Venkata Naveen Kumar, minor, rep by her guardian/ Grand Father Choppara Seshagiri Rao, Akansha Apartment, Habsiguda, Hyderabad. Vijayawada 24. 25. ChopparaSreya, D/o. Venkata Naveen Kumar, minor, rep by her Devi, Akansha guardian/ Grand Mother Choppara Vasumathi Apartment, Habsiguda, Hyderabad. 26. Dhannapaneni Madhu, S/o. Mohanrao, Station Door No. 12-592, Nuzvid, Krishna District. MallipudiKrishnaiah, S/o. Yadaiah Mandal), Krishna District. thota, 2nd street. 27. Reddigudem (Village AND 28. Chinnam Ramakotaiah, S/o. Subbarao, Thota, Nuzvid, Krishna District. (R-7 to 28 are not they are shown onty as proforma party respondents) Ex. MLA, Banginapalli necessary party respondents to this W.A and ...Respondents lA NO: 1 OF 9n9A Petition under Section 151 CPC in the affidavit filed in support of the petition praying that in the circumstances stated the High Court may be pleased to suspend the order of the learned Judge passed in WP.No.22886/2020 dated 10.05.2024 in confirming the order of the Joint Collector and Additional District Magistrate, Krishna District in Revision Petition Computer No.598505 File No.REB-DSECOROR(ROR)/1/2018-SA- (D2)-KC0 dated 21.07.2020 i confirming the order of the Revenue Divisional ROR Appeal No. 19/2017 dated 30.04.2018. appeal. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI G VIVEKANAND Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No. 6: SRI M M M SRINIVASA RAO APHC010320552024 in Officer, Nuzivid passed in pending disposal of the writ WRIT APPEAL NO: 642 OF 2024 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 10.05.2024 in W. P No. 19707 of 2020 on the file of the High Court. Between: Paidipati Durga Rao, S/o Narayana Swamy, aged about 59 years Cultivation,■' R/o D.No.9-42-21 Kothapeta, Vijayawada, Krishna District. Peethani appala swamy street. ...Appellant AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh reptd., by its Principal Secretary Revenue, Secretariat. Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. The District Collector, Krishna District at Machilipatnam. 3. The Joint Collector, Krishna District at Machilipatnam. 4. The Revenue Divisional Officer Nuzvid Division Nuzvid, Krishna District. 5. The Tahsildar, Nuzvid Division Nuzvid Krishna District. 6. The Superintendent of Police, Krishna District at Machilipatna m. 7. The Deputy Superintendent of police, Nuzvid Krishna District. 8. The Inspector of Police, Nuzvid Circle, Nuzvid town and Krishna District. 9. The Station House Officer, Nuzvid Circle, Nuzvid town and Mandal, Krishna District. Mandal 10. Smt Kakumanu Sravanthi Devi, W/o Surya Prakasa Rao, Aged about 58 years. Cultivation, R/o T S Genco Colony, Chelpur Village Ghanapur Mandal Jayashankar Bhupalpalli District 11. Movva Venkateswara Rao, S/o Nageswara Rao, Aged about 42 years, R/o Tatakuntia Village, Vissannapeta Mandal, Krishna District. Parvathaneni Bala Gangadhar Babji, S/o Satyanarayana about 63, R/o Chakkapalli Village, Munusuru Mandal, 12. Aged Krishna District. ...Respondents lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the impugned order dated 10/05/2024 in WP No. 19707/2020 including those impugned in the writ petition in ROR Appeal No. 19/2017 dated 30/04/2018 and that in REV DSECROR REV/9/2018 SA12 KCO 21/07/2020 pending disposal of the writ appeal. praying that in the circumstances stated dated Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI V V RAVI PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 6 to 9: GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent No. 10: SRI M M M SRINIVASA RAO APHC010320612024 B WRIT APPEAL NO: 643 OF 2024 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the orders passed in WP No. 19866 of 2020 dated. 10.05.2024 court. Between: on the file of the High lllipilla Gopinadh, S/o Appa rao, aged about 39 years, occupation. R/o D.No 6-11-8, Near Anjaneyaswamy Temple, Kothapeta, Vijayawada, Krishna District. ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Reptd., by its Principal (Revenue), Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. The District Collector, Krishna District at Machilipatnam. 3. The Joint Collector, Krishna District at Machilipatnam. 4. The Revenue Divisional Officer. Nuzvid Division Nuzvid District. 5. The Tahsildar, Nuzvid Division Nuzvid Krishna District. 6. The Superintendent of Police, Krishna District, Machilipatnam. 7. The Deputy Superintendent of police, Nuzvid Krishna District. 8. The Inspector of Police, Nuzvid Circle, Nuzvid town and Mandal, Krishna District. 9. The Station House Officer, Nuzvid Circle, Nuzvid Krishna District. Secretary Krishna town and Mandal, lO.Smt Kakumanu Sravanthi Devi, W/o Surya Prakasa 58 years. Cultivation, R/o T S Genco Rao, aged about Colony, Chelpur Village, Ghanapur Mandal Jayashankar Bhupalpalli District II.Movva Venkateswara Rao, S/o Nageswara Rao, aged R/o Tatakuntia Village, Vissannapeta Mandal, Krishna District. 12.Parvathaneni Bala Gangadhar Babji, S/o Satyanarayana, Aged about 63, R/o Chakkapalli Village, Munusuru Mandal about 42 years. Krishna District. ...Respondents . lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fifed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the impugned order dated 10/05/2024 in WP No. 19866/2020 including those impugned in the writ petition in ROR Appeal No. 19/2017 dated 30/04/2018 and that in REV DSECROR REV/9/2018 21/07/2020 pending disposal of the writ appeal. 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 direct the respondents 2 to 5 to produce and place the application if any passed on the application said to have been filed by the 10th respondent opting to retain the land of No. 127 part of the Nuzividu, Krishna District and the such option. lA NO: 2 OF 2n7.<> SA12 KCO dated on record the orders on an extent of Ac. 27.00 cts., in S. proceedings permitting Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fifed in support of the petition, the High Court permit the petitioner/ appellant to bring the orders in the Land Ceiling Proceedings of late Meka Rama Mohana Appa Rao in CC No. 2272/GNV/75 on the file of the LRT, Gannavaram and the further may be pleased to proceedings thereon up to as additional evidence in the Writ the honourable Supreme Court of India Appeal. Counsel for the Petitioner; SRI V V RAVI PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5:GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 6 to 9: GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent No. 10; SRI M M M SRINIVASA RAO APHC010320532024 WRIT APPEAL NO: 644 OF 2024 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters passed in WP No. 22212/2020 dated 10.05.2024 Between: Patent against the orders on the file of the High Court. Nathani Durga Rao, S/o Kishanlal, R/o D.No.663, Srinivasarao street, District. aged about 52 years, Cultivation, tailor peta, vijayawad, Krishna ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh reptd., by its Principal Secretary Revenue, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. The District Collector, Krishna District at Machilipatnam. 3. The Joint Collector, Krishna District at Machilipatnam. 4. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Nuzvid Division .Nuzvid, Krishna District. 5. The Tahsildar, Nuzvid Division Nuzvid Krishna District. 6. The Superintendent of Police, Krishna District at Machilipatnam. 7. The Deputy Superintendent of police, Nuzvid Krishna 8. The Inspector of Police, Nuzvid Circle Krishna District. District. Nuzvid town and Mandal, 9. The Station House Officer, Nuzvid Circle, Krishna District. Smt Kakumanu Sravanthi Devi, W/o Surya Prakasa about 58 years. Cultivation, Rio T S Genco Ghanapur Mandal Jayashankar Bhupalpalli District Nuzvid town and Mandal, 10. Rao, Aged Colony, Chelpur Village 11. Movva Venkateswara Rao, S/o Nageswara Rao, Aged about years, R/o Tatakuntia Village, Vissannapeta Mandal, Krishna District. Parvathaneni Bala Gangadhar Babji, S/o Satyanarayana, about 63, R/o Chakkapallr Village, Munusuru Mandal, Krishna 42 12. Aged District. ...Respondents lA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 impugned order dated 10/05/2024 in WP No. 22212/2020 including those impugned in the writ petition in ROR Appeal No. 19/2017 dated 30/04/2018 and that in REV DSECROR REV/9/2018 SA12 KCO dated 21/07/2020 pending disposal of the writ appeal. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI V V RAVI PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5:GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 6 to 9: Counsel for the Respondent No. 10: APHC010320542024 GP FOR HOME SRI M M M SRINIVASA RAO WRIT APPEAL NO: 645 OF 2094 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters passed in WPNo.22135/2020 dated. 10.05.2024 Between: Patent against the orders on the file of the High Court. Somulu Nagi Reddy, S/o Koti Reddy D.No.41-27-63a, Krishnalanka, Vijayawada aged about 57 years Cuttivation Krishna District. ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, reptd., by its Principal Secretary Revenue, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. The District Collector, Krishna District at Machilipatnam. 3. The Joint Collector, Krishna District at Machilipatnam. 4. The Revenue Divisional Officer Nuzvid Division Nuzvid, Krishna District. 5. The Tahsildar, Nuzvid Division Nuzvid Krishna District. 6. The Superintendent of Police, Krishna District at Machilipatnam. 7. The Deputy Superintendent of police, Nuzvid Krishna District. 8. The Inspector of Police, Nuzvid Circle, Nuzvid town and Mandal Krishna District. 9. The Station House Officer, Nuzvid Circle Krishna District. lO.Smt Kakumanu Sravanthi Devi, W/o Surya Prakasa 58 years. Cultivation, R/o T S Genco Ghanapur Mandal Jayashankar Bhupalpalli District Nuzvid town and Mandal, Rao, Aged about Colony, Chelpur Village ...Respondents lA NO: 1 OF 9n9A Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court suspend the impugned order dated 10/05/2024 may be pleased to in WP No. 22135/2020 including those impugned in the writ petition in ROR Appeal No. 19/2017 dated 30/04/2018 and that in REV DSECROR REV/9/2018 SA12 KCO dated 21/07/2020 pending disposal of the writ appeal. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI V V RAVI PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 6 to 9: GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent No. 10: SRI M M M SRINIVASA RAO APHC010320602024 IMS Ejrtrei"- WRIT APPEAL NO: 646 OF 2024 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent passed in WP No. 14394 of 2020 dated 10.05.2024 Court. against the orders on the file of the High Between: 1. Chinnam Venkata Narayana Rao, (Died) 2. Chinnam Venkata Rama Rao s/o Lakshmi Venkata Narasimham. aged 65 years, Cultivation, resident Nuzividu, Krishna District. Sesha of Pathapeta, 3. Chinnam Rama Kotaiah resident of Banginapallithota, Nuzividu. 4. Chinnam Lakshmi Kumari, s/o Subbarao, aged 54 years. Business w/o late Venkata Narayana Rao, aged 74 years, resident of Reddigudem Village and Mandal, Krishna District. 5. Chinnam Veera Venkata Venugopal s/o late Venkata Narayana, 59 years, resident of 4-33, Chinnamvari Street, Reddigudem Village Mandal, Krishna District. and 6. Chinnam Durga Prasad,, s/o late Venkata Narayana resident of 2-192/1, Flat.No. 501, Kanuru Village, Penamaluru Krishna District. 7. Chinnam Lakshmi Narasimha Rao,, 52 years, resident of 2-46, GF-2, Bank Street Krishna District. 8. Chinnam J. S. Chakravarthy resident of 17, 2nd Floor, 4th Cross, ' Bengaluru North, HAL Stage, Bengaluru, Karnataka. 9. Chinnam Mohan Vamsi Krishna resident of Flat No. 401, Vijaya Paradise, 1004th aged 58 years, Mandal, s/o late Venkata Narayana, Aged , Pathapeta, Nuzividu, s/o late Venkata Narayana, 49 years. Govindappan Lane, Kodihalli, s/o late Venkata Naryana, 45 years. Cross, 0pp. Canara Bank Street, HAL 2ncl Stage, Indiranagar, Bengaluru North, Bengaluru, ‘ Karnataka. (Petitioners 4 to 9 are the LRs of 1st Petitioner, who demised 06/11/2021 and lA 1/2021 dated 02/12/2021 was filed to bring them on record) on ...Petitioners AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, reptd., by its Principal Revenue, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi Guntur District. 2. The District Collector, Krishna District at Machilipatnam. 3. The Joint Collector, Krishna District at Machilipatnam. 4. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Nuzvid Division Nuzvid, District. 5. Tahsildar, Nuzvid Division Nuzvid Krishna District. 6. The Superintendent of Police, Krishna District at Machilipatnam. 7. The Deputy Superintendent of police, Nuzvid Krishna, District. 8. Inspector of Police, Nuzvid Circle, Nuzvid town and, Mandal, District. 9. The Station House Officer, Nuzvid Circle, Nuzvid Krishna District. The Kakumanu Sravanthi Devi, , W/o Surya Prakasa Rao, aged about 58 years. Cultivation, Rio T S Genco Colony, Chelpur Village, Ghanapur Randal Jayashankar Bhupalpalli District Movva Venkateswara Rao, S/o Nagesvyara Rao, aged about 42 years, R/o Tatakuntia Village, Vissannapeta Mandal, Krishna District. Parvathaneni Bala Gangadhar Babji, , S/o Satyanarayana. Aged about 63, R/o Chakkapalli Village, Munusuru Mandal, Krishna District Secretary Krishna Krishna town, and Mandal 10. 11. 12. ...Respondents lA NO: 2 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the impugned order dated 10/05/2024 in WP No. 14394/2020 including those impugned in the writ petition in ROR Appeal No. 19/2017 dated 30/04/2018 and that in REV DSECROR REV/9/2018 SA12 KCO dated 21/07/2020 pending disposal of the writ appeal. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI V V RAVI PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 6 to 9: GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No. 10: SRI M M M SRINIVASA RAO APHC010357862024 0^0 praying that in the circumstances stated 0 WRIT APPEAL NO: 964 OF 2024 H , '-etters Patent against the orders dated 10.05.2024 in W.P No. 14514 of 2020 on the file of the High Court. Between: P Ram Prasad, s/o Late P. Harinadha Babu Business R/o D.No.2055, Main Road Kothapeta, District. aged about 40 years, Occ Nuzvid, Krishna ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Principal Secretary Guntur District. (Revenue), Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi 2. The Joint Collector, Krishna District Machilipatnam. Nuzvid Division, Nuzvid Krishna 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, District. 4. The Tahsildar, Nuzvid Division Nuzvid, Krishna District. 5. Smt Kakumanu Sravanthi Devi, W/o Surya Prakasa Rao, aged about 58 years, Cultivation, Rio T S Genco Colony, Chelpur Village, Ghanapur Mandal Jayashankar Bhupalpalli District ...Respondents lA NO: 3 OF 2024 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 operation of proceedings No. Rev-DSECOROR(REV)/7/201 8- SA-(D2)-KCO dated 21.07.2020 of 2nd respondent and proceedings No. ROR Appeal.No. 19/2017 dated 30.04.2018 of 3rd respondent in the interest of justice. lA NO: 4 OF 2024 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 orders dated 15.03.2024 in WP.No.14514 of 2020 in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: M/S INDUS LAW FIRM Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No. 5: SRI M M M SRINIVASA RAO The Court made the following Common order: HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH * * * * THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NAJH TILHARI o t & THE HON'BL SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT APPEALS Nos. 639, 642, 643, 644. 645, 646 and 964 of 2024 W.A.No.639 of 2024 Between: Mamidi Srinivas and another APPELLANTS AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, (ROR), Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District and others RESPONDENTS W.A.No.642 of 2024 Between: Paidipati Durga Rao APPELLANT AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Revenue, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District and others RESPONDENTS W.A.No.643 of 2024 Between: Hlipilla Gopinadh APPELLANT AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary (Revenue), Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District and others RESPONDENTS RNT, J & MRK, J WA Nos.639of2024& batch 2 W.A.No.644 of 2024 Between: Nathani Durga Rao APPELLANT AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Revenue, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District and others RESPONDENTS W.A.No.645 of 2024 Between: Somulu Nagi Reddy .....APPELLANT AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Sepretary, Revenue, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District and others RESPONDENTS W.A.No.646 of 2024 Between: Chinnam Venkata Narayana Rao (died) and others APPELLANTS AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Revenue, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District and others RESPONDENTS W.A.No.964 of 2024 Between: P. Ram Prasad APPELUNT AND ; The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary (Revenue) Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District and others RESPONDENTS RNT, J & MRK, J WA Nos.639of2024& batch 3 DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 15:10.2025 SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAl : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI* & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM 1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgments? 2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law Reporters/Journals ‘ 3. Whether Your Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Judgment? ? Yes/No v^s/No v-^es/No RNT, J & MRK. J WA Nos.639of2024& batch 4 * THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM + WRIT APPEALS Nos. 639, 642, 643. 644, 645. 646 and 964 of 2024 %\^ 10.2025 W.A.No.639 of 2024 Between: Mamidi Srinivas and another APPELLANTS AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, (ROR), Secretariat Buildings, Veiagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District and others RESPONDENTS W.A.No.642 of 2024 Between: Paidipati Durga Rao APPELLANT AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Revenue, Secretariat, Veiagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District and others RESPONDENTS W.A.No.643 of 2024 Between: lllipilla Gopinadh APPELLANT AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary (Revenue), Secretariat, Veiagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District and others RESPONDENTS RNT, J & MRK, J WA Nos.639 of 2024 & batch 5 W.A.No.644 Of 2024 Between: Nathanj Durga Raa .APPELLANT AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Revenue, Secretariat, Velagapudi, ‘ Amaravati, Guntur District and others RESPONDENTS i W.A.No.645 of 2024 Between: Somulu Nagi Reddy APPELLANT AND * The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Revenue, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District and others RESPONDENTS W.A.No.646 of 2024 Between: Chinnam Venkata Narayana Rao (died) and others APPELLANTS AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Revenue, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District and others RESPONDENTS W.A.No.964 of 2024 Between: P. Rarrr Prasad APPELLANT AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary (Revenue) Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District and others ....RESPONDENTS :' Sri 0. Manohar Reddy, Senior Advocate : assisted by Sri G. Vivekanand : Sri V. V. Ravi Prasad ! Counsel for the Appellants In W.A.No.639 of 2024 Counsel for the Appellants RNT, J & MRK, J WA Nos.639 of 2024 & batch 6 In W.A.Nos.642, 643, 644, 645 and 646 of 2024 Counsel for the official Respondents : Sri K. Bhagat Singh, AGP for Revenue Counsel for the unofficial Respondents : Sri M. M. M. Srinivasa Rao assisted by Sri Venkateswara Rao Gudapati, < Gist : > Head Note: ? Cases Referred: 1. (2007) 6 see 186 2. (2019) 13 see 70 RNT, ?& MRK, J WA Nos.639 of 2024 & batch 7 THE HON^BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI & THE HON'BL SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA fIaO KUNCHEAM WRIT APPEALS Nos. 639, 642, 643, 644, 645, 646 and 964 of 2024 COMMON JUDGMENT: (per Hon'bie Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari) Heard Sri 0. Manohar Reddy, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri G. Vivekanand, learned counsel for the appellants in W.A.No.639 of 2024; Sri V. V. Ravi Prasad, learned counsel for the appellants in W.A.Nos.642, 643, 644, 645 and 646 of 2024, Sri K. Bhagat Singh, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for the official respondents and Sri M. M. M. Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel, assisted by Sri Venkateswara Rao Gudapati, learned counsel for the unofficial respondents in all the Writ Appeals. ? 2. These Appeals Nos.639, 642, 643‘, 644, 645, 646 and 964 of 2024 arise out of a common judgment arid order dated 10.05.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.Nos.22886, 19707, 19866, 22212, 22135, 14394 and 14514 of 2020 respectively. 3. The facts and also the contentions advanced being the same, all the aforesaid Appeals were being decided by this common judgment. The Writ Appeal No.639 of 2024 is taken as the leading appeal of the batch cases. 4. The Writ Appellants are the Writ Petitioners. 5. The main contest is between the writ petitioners/writ appellants, and one Kakumanu Sravanthi Devi, 6^*^ respondent in W.A.No.639 of 2024 (also 6th RNT, J & MRK, J WA Nos.639 of 2024 & batch ‘ respondent in W.P.No.22886 of 2020) and also arrayed as different respondent number in the rest of the writ petitions/writ appeals. I. Facts: 8 6. One Meka Venkata Ram Mohan Appa Rao had originally acquired property to an extent of Ac.27.00 in R.S.No.l27/P of Nuzvid Revenue Village and Mandal in Krishna District in partition between his father Raja Meka Venkata Narasimha Apparao Bahadur and his brother Raja Meka Venkata IMavaneetha Krishna Apparao Bahpdur under partition deed, vide document No.4336/1957, dated 19.08.1957. Meka Venkata Ram Mohan Appa Rao is said to have sold his prop^ to an extent of Ac.27.00 to Inuganti Narasimha Rao and his brother Inuganti Ramachandra Rao through an unregistered agreement of sale dated 31.12.1970. Inuganti Ramachandra Rao died intestate, and as bachelor on 08.11.1975. His brother Inuganti Narasimha Rao being the sole legal, heir succeeded to his estate and became the absolute possessor to that extent of Ac.27.00. owner and Inuganti Narasimha Rao sold that property to various persons (transferees) in bits and pieces during the year 1985. The writ petitioners of the writ petitions/the appellants in writ appeals are either the purchasers from Inuganti Narasimha Rao or their vendors were the transferees from, Inuganti Narasimha Rao under different numbers of different dates being the registered sale deeds. Their recorded in the revenue records and pattadar passbooks were issued. 1. Kakumanu Sravanthi Devi (6' the sister of Meka Venkata Rama Mohana Appa Rao. document names were respondent in W.A.No.639 of 2024) is He died on 03.12.2014. RNT, J & MRK, J WA Nos.639 of 2024 & batch 9 Kakumanu Sravanthj Devi claimed to have acquired his estate under a Will dated 20.01.2014, she filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nuzvid (4^*' respondent in W.A.No.639 ,of i024) being ROR Appeal IMo.19 of 2017 and claimed to be the absolute owner and prayed to cancel the pattadar passbooks and title deeds in favour of the vendors i.e., the writ petitioners. 8. The Revenue Divisional Officer vide Order dated 30.04.2018,allowed the appeal, cancelled the pattadar passbooks and the title deeds which were in ft favour of the writ petitioners and deleted their names in .Land Record of Rights. The writ petitioners filed revision petitions, which were dismissed vide Order dated 21.07.2020 by the Joint Collector and Additiorjal District Magistrate, Krishna District, Machilipatnam, 3'^^ respondent. Pursuant thereto, some of the f respondents, including the official respondents were insisting and pressurizing the writ petitioners to vacate the land and attempted to dispossess by use of police force. 9. The writ petitioners filed the aforesaid writ petitions challenging the appellate Order dated 30.04.2018 and the revisional Order dated 21.07.2020, as also the action of the respondents in trying to dispossess the writ petitioners, n* Common Order in Writ PetitionfsJ: 10. The learned single Judge, by common Judgrpent and Order, dated i 10.05.2024, dismissed all the writ petitions, observing that there Infirmity or impropriety of jurisdiction in tlje impugned orders which did not .warrant any interference, taking the view that there was a dispute with regard to the title and possession which could be established by the competent Civil was no N RNT, J & MRK, J WA Nos.639 of 2024 & batch 10 Court, in comprehensive civil suit, and thereafter, they may approach the revenue authorities unber the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (ROR Act). The learned single Judge further directed that the Order passed in Appeal No. 19 of 2017, dated 30.04.2018 and the Revisional Order dated 21.07.2020 shall be implemented forthwith, if not already implemented. The learned single Judge further provided that, to enable the parties to approach the competent Civil Court, status quo as on the date of the judgment shall be maintained with respect to the possession for a- period of two months and any further interim relief or reliefs, may be prayed from the competent Civil Court, in. Submissions of the learned Counsels: i) For the Writ Appellants: 11. Sri 0. Manohar Reddy, learned Senior Advocate and Sri V. V. Ravi Prasad, learned counsels for the appellants submitted that the Revenue Divisional Officer had no appellate jurisdiction. They submitted that there no order passed against the 6^*^ respondent-Kakumanu Sravanthi Devi, so, filing straight away an appeal under Section 5B of the ROR Act, was not competent. The Order passed by the Revenge Divisional Officer impugned in the writ petition was therefore without jurisdiction. They submitted that this plea specifically raised in tfie writ petitions and argument was advanced, but no finding on that aspect has been recorded by the learned single Judge. Learned counsels further submitted that Section 4 of the ROR Act deals with regard to the acquisition of rights by making an application to the Tahsildar, upon which was was RNT, .1 & MRK., J WA Nos.639 of 2024 & batch 11 the Tahsildar is required to conduct an enquiry under the Act and the Rules and But the 6^'' respondent bid not make any application for pass an Order, amending or updating records of rights as provided by Sections 4 and 5 of the ROR Act and directly filed the appeal under Section 5B. Learned counsels submitted that the appeal under Section SB lies only against an Order passed . under Section 5A, but in the present case, there was no order passed under Section 5A. 12. Learned counsels further submitted that the 6^'’ respondent claimed rights based on the alleged Will of 2014 from her brother, but based thereon, she could not question the mutation entries which were affected in the revenue records in the year 1985, based on the sale, deeds executed by the petitioners' •vendors, in which Meka Venkata Ram Mohan Apparao, the original owner and brother of the 6*'" respondent had also signed as an attesting witness. So, after 20 years of the mutation effected, those entries could not be challenged and that too, the way, those were challenged. 13. Learned counsels for the writ appellants further submitted that even if based on the Will, any right was being claimed, the same required determination for which it was for the 6*^^ respondent to have approached the i Civil Court for determination of the right or title. The same could not be made in the proceedings under the ROR Act. So, the submission is that there was requirement for institution of the Civil Suit, and such a suit should have been \ filed^by the respondent. However, the learned single 3udge without considering this aspect directed the parties, i.e., the petitioners and the ■n V »' RNT, J & MRK, J V/A Nos.639 of 2024 & batch. 12 unofficial respondents to approach' the competent Civil Court. They expressed that since the respondent's name has been directed to be mutated in the records, as the learned Single Judge, by the impugned order, at the same time has also directed to implement the orders impugned in the writ petition forthwith, the respondent wouW no longer approach the Civil Court and it is now for the writ petitioners to approach the Civil Court. 14. Learned counsels for the appellants further submitted that the learned single Judge 'though extracted all the contentions raised by the counsels for the parties, but without making any specific finding on the- contentions advanced, dismissed the writ petitions. The learned Single Judge also failed to see that the revenue authorities had no jurisdiction to go into the question of title. So, leased on the Will when title could not be determined by the reyenuf. Court under the disputed case, based on the same, the earlier mutation entries existirig in the record in favour of the writ petitioner could also not be changed. The Will required proof as per the provisions of Section 63 (c) of the Indian Succession Act read with Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act. They submitted that neither in appellate order por in the revisionai order there is any finding on the aspect of the proof of the Will even for the purposes of The said material aspect has also not been considered in the judgment under appeal, but direction has been issued to implement the orders Impugned in the writ p^tition(s). mutation. RNT, J & MRK, .1 WA Nos.639 of 2024 & batch 13 ii) For the 6*^^ Respondent: ' 15. Sri M. M. M. Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the 6“" respondent, submitted that the claim of the writ appellants is that Meka Venkata Ram Mohan Apparao executed an agreement of sale dated 31.12.1970, but the same was not an agreement of sale. It was a promissory note. The 6^'^ respondent is the sister of the said Meka Venkata Ram Moban Apparao and in her favour there is a Will. So, after the death of Meka Venkata Ram Mohan Apparao, she made an application for mutation and to cancel the pattadar passbooks. He ) further submitted that the said Meka Venkata Ram Mohan Apparao had made the declaration which was confirmed by the learned Senior Civil Judge's Court, I Nuzvid in E.A.No.311 of 2015 in E.P.No.33 of 2011 in LA.O.P.No.39 of 1990 dated 13.06.2016. As per the orders of the Land Reforms Tribunal, in the said case, the 6^*^ respondent had to surrender the lands equivalent to the standard holding of 1.122 hectors. Copy of the common Order dated 13.06.2016 has been brought on record by memo to submit that in the said proceedings that Will in favour of the 6^*' respondent was believed and based thereon E.A.No.311 of 2015 by the 6^^ respondent was allowed declaring her to be the legal J representative of Meka Venkata Ram Mohan Appar30,‘ who died during the proceedingsof E.P. 16. Learned counsel for the 6‘^ respondent has brought on record vide Memo dated 28.12.2024, the copy of the memo of appeal under Section 5B of the ROR Act to show that the respondent made an application before the Tahsildar, Nuzvid for mutating the name in respect of the properties left by RNT, J & MRK, J WA Nos.639of2024& batch 14 Meka Venkata Ram Motian Apparao which devolved on her including Ac.27.00’ cents and- also asked to issue pattadar passbooks and title deed books in her name. But the said application remained pending. So, the 6*^ respondent had to file the appeal. He submitted that when the Order is not being passed by the competent authority on the application, and so no Order, then also the 6 respondtent had the right to file appeal raising the grievance before the appellate authority. 17. Learned counsel for the 6^^ erspondent submitted that the Order passed by the Writ Court does not suffer from any Hlegalib/ and calls for no interference. He submitted that previously also one W.P^No.l4411 of 2020- th challenging the same Orders dated 21.07.2020 passed by the Joint Collector, Machilipatnam, Krishna District was filed which was dismissed vide Order dated 20.0S.202O, against which W.A.No.316 of 2020 was filed and the same was disposed of vide judgment dated 09.11.2020 without interfering with the Order dated 20.08.2020 passed in W.P.No. 14411 of 2020. iii) Submissions bv the learned Govt. Pleader fRevenueJ: 18. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue submitted that an application under Section 4 was made by the 6^^ respondent, however, he adds that, the same was not decided and remained pending. He submitted that the appeal under Section 5 (5) of the,ROR Act was maintainabte. He referred to para-10 of the counter affidavit filed in W.P.No.22886 of 2020 to submit that the 6 respondent-SiJit.Kakumanu Sravanthi Devi filed appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer for mutation of records in her name. She also RNT, J & MRK, J WA Nos.639 of 2024 & batch 15 ^3 1 produced the general power of attorney issued by the family members in support of her' claim. The Revenue Divisional Officer conducted detailed enquiry and passed orders on 30.04.2018 in ROR Appeal No. 19 of 2017 cancelling the mutations effected earlier. iv) Reply submissions of Appellants' Counsels: 19. In reply, learned counsels for the writ appellants submitted that so far as LAOP.No.39 of 1990 is concerned, from the documents annexed, it is evident that, there, the point for consideration was with respect to registered Will dated 24.01.1994 by M. V. Samrajya Lakshmi,the mother of Meka Venkata Ram Mohan Apparao, in his favour and on fiis death, when the 6^ respondent filed E.A.No.311 of 2015, further consideration was with respect to that unregistered Will dated 20.01.2014 by Meka Venkata Ram Mohan Apparao in favour of the 6^^ respondent but only for the purpose of declaration as legal representative of the deceased M. V. Samrajya Lakshmi. They referred to the point for consideration as framed in the common order dated 13.06.2016 which is as follows: “Whether the petitioner proved due execution registered Will dt.24.1.1994 by M.V.Samrajya Lakshmi and an unregistered Will dt.20.1.2014 by M.V.Ram Mohana Apparao and the petitioner can be declared as legal representative of the deceased T' D.Hr. M. V. Samrajya Lakshmi?” 20. Learned counsel for the writ appellants submitted that the said order dated 13.06.2016 could not be made the basis to change the mutation entries already existing in favour of the writ appellants, for the reason that, in LAOP No.39 of 1990 the subject matter was different, the same was with respect to 'A RNT, J & MRK, J \VA Nos.639of2024& batch 16 the declaration made by the mother of Meka Venkata Ram Mohan Apparao and consequently, to receive the compensation. The present subject matter is with respect to the property which Meka Venkata Ram Mohan Apparao got in partition with his father and brother, and the petitioners were not parties in those proceedings. They further submitted that though in the said case, in the Order dated 13.06.2016 there is mention that the attestors of the Will dated 20.01.2014 were testified as PWs 3 and 4 therein but nothing is there in the judgment to show as to how the Will was proved by those attesters. 21. Learned counsels for the appellants submitted that if the Will or/and the Order in LAOP would not bind on the writ petitioners so as to deprive them of the property of Meka Venkata Ram Mohan Apparao with respect to which he executed agreement of sale, and the sale deeds from those persons which were executed during his lifp time, in which he also signed as attestors, along with the executors. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that such transfers in favour of the writ petitioners were valid and had the effect of conferring title, keeping in view the provisions of Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, providing for transfers by ostensible owner. The submission is that if the title to the subject properties required determination based on documents in favour of the writ petitioners executed during the lifetime of Meka Venkata Ram Mohan Apparao to which, during his life time there was no objection raised nor any challenge made and based thereon when during his lifetime the mutation had been effected in the revenue records, after the death of Meka Venkata 1 t Ram Mohan Apparao, on the appeal of the 6‘^ respondent based on the Will, RMT, J & MRK, .1 WA Nos.639'of2024& batch 17 those mutation entries could not be upset and in view of the revenue record entries if the claim was made based on Will it was for the 6“^ respondent to have filed the suit in the competent Court of Civil jurisdiction. IV. Point for Determination: 22. The point that arises for our consideration is as under: ‘Whether the judgment under challenge suffers from any 'illegality and calls for any interference? i. 23. We have considered the aforesaid submissions and perused the material on record. V. Analysis: 24. From the aforesaid, what becomes evident is, that the 6^^ respondent made an application to the Tahsildar, but the same remained pending and with the said averment, the 6* respondent filed the appeal under Section 5B of the Act 1971. 25. Challenging the Order dated 30.04.2018 of the Revenue Divisional Officer in ROR Appeal No.l9 of 2017 and the Order dated 21.07.2020 passed by the Joint Collector in Revision Petition Computer No.598505, the first writ appellant/first writ petitioner in W.P.No.22886 of 2020 along with another filed W.P.IMo.14411 of 2020 which was dismissed. Learned single Judge in that writ petition was not inclined to entertain the case in the absence of the relevant documents which were relied upon by the Joint Collector while recording its findings. However, it was provided that the petitioners may approach the Civil Court and file a suit and while deciding the suit, the finding as recorded by the RNT, J & MRK, J WA Nos.639of2024& batch 18 revenue authorities would not be binding on the Civil Court and an independent finding, may be recorded by the Civil Court on the basis of the material brought on record. * 26. The Order dated 20.08.2020 in W.P.No. 14411 of 2020 reads as under: “ChaHenging the order dated 21.07.2020 passed by the 2"'* respondent- joint Collector, Machilipatnam, Krishna District, this petition has been filed. • Counsel for the petitioners has fairly stated that the title and interest in the property has to be decided by the civil court, but, now the Tahsildar wants to evict the petitioners; therefore, petitioners have approached this court. It is tobe seen that the document which has been relied upon by the 2 respondent while recording finding in paragraphs 37 to 40 has not been produced before this Court for consideration. In absence of such document, this Court is not inclined to entertain this case. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, petitioners approach the civil court and file a suit; while deciding the suit, the finding recorded by the reveijue authorities would not be binding oh the civil court and an independent finding may be reorded by the civil court on the basis of the material brought on record. As a sequel," all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand nd may as closed. 95 27. Challenging the said Order in W.P.No.l4411 of 2020, W.A.No.316 of 2020 was filed, which was also disposed of observing that instead of filing the Writ Appeal, the writ petitioners should have approached the Writ Court with those documents for review of the Order. The Writ Appeal was disposed of to avail the appropriate remedy, if so advised. 28. The Order dated 09.11.2020 in W.A.No.316 of 2020 is as under: -"'X RNT, J & MRK, .1 WA Nos.639 of 2024 & batch 19. Heard Sri Sita Ram Chaparla, learned counsel for the G.L.Nageswara Rao, learned Government Pleader M.M.M.Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel, who has appeared on behalf of private respondent No. 5. appellants, Sri for Revenue and Sri The present appeal has been preferred against the order dated 20.08.2020 passed in W.P.No.l4411 of 2020. By the said order, the writ petition was dismissed. While dismissing the writ petition, it was observed that the petitioners may approach the civil Court and file a suit 'i.? Learned counsel for the petitioners tried to persuade this Court that the said order was passed by the learned Single Judge primarily on the ground that the petitioners had failed to bring on record documents, which by respondent No.2 while recording finding in paragraph Nqs.37 to 40. It submitted by learned counsel for the appellants/writ petitioners that those documents are now available to the petitioners and those documents brought on record in the present appeal. were relied upon was have been On examining die impugned order, prima facie it is evident that the writ petition stood dismissed since the petitioners were having efficacious alternative remedy for moving the civil Court for deciding the issue. However, was made regarding non production of certain documents, which were referred by respondent No.2 in its finding recorded in paragraph Nos.37 to 40. Normally, in appeal this Court m^y not examine those documents, which were not placed before the writ Court. In that view of the in the order a reference matter, we are of the considered opinion that of course as per the order of the writ Court, the petitioners were required to approach the civil Court but they are aggrieved, regarding rejection of the writ petition due even if to non production of documents, which now they are having, the writ appellants instead of filing the present appeal would have approached the writ Court with those documents for review of the order. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Writ Appeal stands disposed of If the appellants are so advised, they may avail appropriate remedy. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Appeal shall stand closed.” RNT, J & MRK, J WA Nos.639of2&24& batch - 20 29. Nothing has been brought on record that the writ appellants of W.A.No.316 of 2020 availed any appropriate remedy against the order dated 20.08.2020 in W.P.No.14411 of 2020. or against the Order passecf in Writ Appeal No.316 of 2020. 30. We are of the view that after the dismissal of the W.P.No.l4411 of i 2020, though the parties name therein reflects that there were only two petitioners, against the same order dated 21.07.2020 passed by the Joint Collector, and against which, the writ appeal was filed, but was also disposed of without interfering with the said order, there would be no scope for the writ In our view, the matter stands appellants in the present writ appeais. concluded to this effect that the writ appellants cannot challenge the Order of the Joint Collector dated 21.07.2020 in writ proceedings, but in case of grievance, the writ petitioners may approach the Civil Court. We are of the further view that the other writ petitioners, other than those two writ petitioners of W.P.No. 14411 of 2020, might have or might not have filed the writ petitions previously, but the dispute is with respect to the property of the same person Meka Venkata Ram Mohan Apparao and the case of all the writ petitioners/writ appellants is the same. Consequently, against the same order passed by the Joint Collector arising out of the Order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, a different view could not be taken. There cannot be conflicting orders against the same order impugned in the different writ petitions. 31. For that view of the matter, also, the writ petitions have rightly been dismissed, though we find that in the order of the learned single Judge there is "X RNT, J & MRK, J WA Nos.639of2024& batch ft 21 no reference of Writ Petition No. 14411 of 2020 and Writ Appeal No.316 of 2020. However, those Orders are not in dispute which have been brought on record vide Hemo dated 04.11.2024 and against which nothing to the contrary has been filed by the writ appellants. 32. The learned single Judge has taken the v,iew that the disputes i involve determination of title which cannot be determined by the Revenue Court in the summary proceedings for mutation. In our view also, the dispute •involves complicated questions of tile, particularly, in view of the submission advanced with respect to the nature of the documents being agreement of sale or promissory note by Meka Venkata Ram Mohan Apparao in favour of his alleged transferees as also the submission advanced from the appellants side that the sale deed by those alleged transferees of Meka Venkatara Ram Mohan Apparao would be binding and conveying/transferring the title to the writ petitioners, in view of Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, being the transfer by an ostensible owner, with the attestation by its original owner. The question of proof of Will in favour of the ^6^^ respondent would also require determination as also the effect of the Orders passed in E.A.No.311 of 2015 in E.P.No.33 of 2011 in LAOP No.39 of 1990, dated 13.06.2016, when the writ th appellants are disputing the Will or/and that, that Will cannot confer title on 6 respondent for the submissions advanced. We are of the view that all those questions can be determined only on the civil side by the competent Civil Court. The learned single Judge has already issued directions directing the parties to The same was also the direction approach the competent Civil Court. RNT, J & MRK, J WA Nos.639 of 2024 & batch 22 previously given in Writ Petition No. 14411 of 2020, which Order was not interfered with in the writ appeal. 33. It is settied position of law that the mutation of a property in the revenue records are fiscal proceedings and does not create or extinguish title nor has it any presumptive value on title. It only enables the person in whose favour the mutation has been ordered, to pay the land revenue. i . 34. In Suraj Bhan v. Financial Commr. the Hon'ble Apex Court observed in paragraphs-8 and 9 as under: . “8. So far as mutation is concerned, it is clear that entry has been made and mutation has been effected in revenue records by the Tahsildar on the basis of an application made by Respondent 5 herein and his name has been entered in record-of-rights on the basis of the will said to have been executed by Ratni Devi. In our opinion-, therefore, it caimot be said that by entering the name of Respondent 5 in revenue records, any illegality had been committed by the Tahsildar. It is true that no notice was issued to the appellants but the Tahsildar had taken the action on the basis of will said to have been executed by deceased Ratni Devi in favour of Respondent 5. The said order has been confirmed by the Collector as also^by the Financial Commissioner. When the grievance was made against the said action by filing a writ petition, the High Court also confirmed all the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities under the Act. We see no infirmity so far as that part of the order is concerned. 9. There is an additional reason as to why we need not interfere with that order under Article 136 of the Constitution. It is well settled that an entry in revenue records does not confer title on a person whose name appears in record- of-rights. It is settled law that entries in the revenue records or jamabandi have only “fiscal purpose” i.e. payment of land revenue, and no ownership is conferred on the basis of such entries. So far as title to the property is concerned, it can only be decided by a competent civil court (videJottw ^ (200^6 see 186 RNT, J & MRK, J WA Nos.639 of 2024 & batch A 23 Ram V. Hakam Singh [(1993) 4 SCC 403 : AIR 1994 SC 1653] ). As already noted earlier, civil proceedings in regard to genuineness- of will are pending with the High Court of Delhi. In the circumstances, we see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the High Court in the writ petition. 35. In Ajit Kaur v. Darshan Singhi^ has held as under in paragraph- 15: “15 It is a settled position of law that the mutation of a property in the revenue records are fiscal proceedings and does not creSte or extinguish title has it any presumptive value on title. It only enables the person in whose favour mutation has been ordered, to pay the land revenue. At the same time, the effect of a declaratory decree to restore the property alienated to the estate of the alienor is that until and unless the alienees are able to convince the court that they have no subsisting interest in the property, the heirs of the alienor would be entitled to the benefits of the property as per the law of succession. The effect of the operation of the aforesaid declaratory decree would be to restore the land in dispute to the aforesaid estate of Bhana (deceased) and the succession would be deemed to have opened on 27-3-1973 when Bhana died. On his death, the estate left behind him including the land in dispute would devolve upon his heirs as per their entitlement and after the registered will dated 5-1-1973 has been upheld by the High Court in RSA No. 933 of 19S4 decided 28-7-2004 [Banti v. Darshan Singh, RSA No. 933 of 1984, order dated 28- 7-2004 (P&H)] and attained finality, its consequence accordingly.” nor on was to follow 36. We are of the further view that once the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions directing the parties to approach the competent Civil Court, the learned Single Judge was right in not considering the submissions on merits as any finding recorded on the merits of the submissions would have affected the parties in the final determination of the dispute by the 2(2019) 13 SCC 70 RNT, J & MRK, J WA Nos.639 of 2024 & batch 24 competent Civil Court. We are also of the view that after dismissal of the W.P.No.14411 of 2020, as aforesaid and the writ appeal against the Order in. the said writ petition, the writ petition, could not have been filed by the same petitioner, again, nor by the other writ petitioners against the same order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, and making any observations on the merits of the submissions advanced may prejudice the rights of the parties before the Civil Court, if they so approach the said Court as the parties are at liberty to approach the competent Civil Court. 37. However, we are of the view that once the learned single Judge was of the view that those writ petitions deserved dismissal and dismissed the same, the direction to implement the orders passed by the Revenue Court impugned in the writ petitions could not have been issued. To that extent, we are of the view that, that direction deserves to be set aside while maintaining the rest of the judgn’ient. There is another reason-Tor setting aside such direction and that is that in the W.P.No.l441 of 2020 and W.A.No.316 of 2020 no such direction was issued by the Coordinate Bench. VI. Conclusion: 38. In view of the above consideration, we find no illegality in the common judgment impugned in these appeals in dismissing the writ petition(s) directing the parties to approach the Civil Court, but no direction could be issued to forthwith implement the orders impugned in the writ petition(s). VII. Result: 39. In the result, RNT, J & MRK, J WA Nos.639 of 2024 & batch 25 i) the dismissal of the writ petitionfs) with direction to the parties to approach the Civil Court is maintained; ii) the direction to maintain status quo with respect to the possession of the subject land is also maintained, which shall continue for a further period of three months from today; iii) the direction to implement the Orders impugned in the Writ Petitions cannot be sustained and the said direction is set aside; iv) all the Writ Appeals are disposed of in the aforesaid terms; v) No order as to costs; Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in consequence. Sd/-SHAIKMOHD. RAFI DEPUTY REGISTRAR I //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER One fair copy to The Hon’ble SRi justice ravi nath tilhari (For His Lordships Kind Perusal) One fair copy to The Hon’ble SRi JUSTICE maheswara rao kuncheam (For His Lordships Kind Perusal) To, 1. The Principal Secretary (Revenue). State of Andhra Pradesh Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. The District Collector, Krishna District at Machilipatoam. 3. The Joint Collector, Krishna District, Machilipatnam. 4. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Nuzvid Division. District. 5. The Tahsildar, Nuzvid Division Nuzvid, Krishna District. 6. The Superintendent of Police, Krishna District at Machilipatnam. 7. The Deputy Superintendent of police, Nuzvid Krishna District. 8. Inspector of Police, Nuzvid Circle, Nuzvid town and District. Nuzvid Krishna Mandal, Krishna station House Officer, Nuzvid Circle, Nuzvid town and Mandal, ^ The Krishna District. . ^ , The Mandai Revenue Officer, Nuzvid Mandal, Nuzvid Manda Krishna District. 10. 9 LR Copies 11. of India, Ministry of Law, Justice and The Under Secretary, Union Company Affairs, New Delhi. 12. A.P Advocates’ Association Library, High Court The Secretary, Buildings, Amaravathi. 13. M/S Indus Law Firm Advocate [OPUC] Rao Advocate [OPUC] One CC to 14. One CC to Sri. M M M Srinivasa One CC to Sri. VV Ravi Prasad Advocate [OPUC] High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] High Court of Andhra Pradesh 15. 16. Two CCS to GP for Home Two CCS to GP for Revenue 17. 18. [OUT] Two CD Copies 19. gsc HIGH COURT DATED:15/10/2025 COMMON ORDER WRIT APPEAL NO: 639, 642, 643, 644, 645, 646 AND 964 OF 2024 OCT 2025 DISPOSING THE WAS WITHOUT COSTS