APHC010432302023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] FRIDAY,THE THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 22332/2023 Between: 1. V. HASAN VALI,, S/O. SITAR SAB, AGED 65 YEARS, AGRICULTURE, H. NO.1/124, I WARD, BUKKAPATNAM, PUTTAPARTHI MANDAL, SATYA SAI DISTRICT., ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPLE SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SATYASAI DISTRICT AT PUTTAPARTHI. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PNUKONDA, SATYASAI DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHASILDAR, PUTTAPARTHI MANDAL, PTTAPARTHI. 5. VADDI ANJANAPPA, S/O. PEDDA RAMAPPA, AGED MAJOR, R/O. PEDDAPALLI VILLAGE, PUTTAPARTHI MANDAL, SATYA SAI DISTRICT., ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 order or orders, direction or directions, Writ or Writs 2 particularly one in the nature Writ of Mandamous or any appropriate writ to declare the action of the 4th respondent in altering 1 B and revenue records, with the 5th respndent name, deleting the petitoner name, is illegal, arbitrary agians the principle of Natural Justice, against the provisons of Andhra Pradesh Rights of Pattadar Passbook Act., 1971 voilative of Articles 14, 21 and 300 A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to delete the name of the 5th respondent in Form 1 B and other revenue records and continue the name of the petitioners pertaining to petitioners land to an extent of Ac.4.42 cents in Sy. No.681-4 situated at Battalapalli Village, H/o. Peddapalli Village, Puttaparthi Mandal, Satya Sai District., and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 pleased to direct the respondents not to evict the petitioner from his land to an extent of Ac.4.42 cents in Sy. No.681-4 situated at Battalapalli Village, H/o. Peddapalli Village, Puttaparthi Mandal, Satya Sai District., pending disposal of main WP No. of 2023 and to pass IA 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 Pleased to vacate the interim order dated 29.08.2023 passed in W.P.No. 22332 of 2023 and dismiss the Writ Petition and pass. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K L N SWAMY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. V SAI KUMAR The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.22332 OF 2023 ORDER: The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “…to issue order or orders, direction or directions, Writ or Writs particularly one in the nature Writ of Mandamus or any appropriate writ to declare the action of the 4th respondent in altering 1B and revenue records, with the 5th respondent name, deleting the petitioner name, is illegal, arbitrary against the principle of Natural Justice, against the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Rights of Pattadar Passbook Act., 1971 voilative of Articles 14, 21 and 300 A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to delete the name of the 5th respondent in Form 1 B and other revenue records and continue the name of the petitioners pertaining to petitioners land to an extent of Ac.4.42 cents in Sy.No.681-4 situated at Battalapalli Village, H/o. Peddapalli Village, Puttaparthi Mandal, Satya Sai District., and to pass such other order or orders…” 2. Petitioner was granted a D-form patta for an extent of Ac.4.42 cents in Survey No.681/4, Peddapalli Village, Puttaparthi Mandal, Satya Sai District. Petitioner’s name was mutated in all the revenue records and he has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property. 3. Be that as it may, respondent No.5 filed an appeal before the 3rd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Kadiri, vide Rc.No.3186/2015/E, seeking cancellation of the pattadar pass book issued in favour of Sri Abdul Saheb and Sri Vaddi Ramanjaneulu, without impleading the petitioner as a party. The said appeal was disposed on 30.08.2017 by setting aside the 4 pattadar pass book granted to Sri Abdul Saheb and Sri Vaddi Ramanjaneyulu, and the Tahsildar, Puttaparthy, was directed to delete the entry in webland and to take further action in accordance with law. 4. Thereafter, respondent authorities carried out changes in revenue records without giving any notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, present writ petition is filed. 5. Heard Sri KLN Swamy, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Sri V.Sai Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.5. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that a DKT patta for the land admeasuring Ac.4.42 cents in Survey No. 681/4, located in Peddapalli Village, Puttaparthi Mandal, was issued in favor of the petitioner and the petitioner name was recorded in the revenue records and he drew the Court's attention to the revenue records, including the 1B register, Adangal, and Pattadar Passbook, petitioner's name was recorded in all the documents. 7. The learned counsel further stated that while the petitioner's name was correctly recorded in the revenue records, the unofficial respondent filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), suppressing these facts and incorrectly naming other individuals as parties to the appeal that the petitioner will suffer by reason that petitioner not being made a party to the appeal and the appeal was subsequently allowed behind the back of the petitioner. The learned counsel further contended that the RDO allowed the 5 appeal without verifying the existing records, it indicates a collusion with the unofficial respondent. Furthermore, he argued that the disposal of the appeal without issuing a notice to the petitioner was illegal and a violation of the principles of natural justice. Hence, he would urge this Court to set aside the impugned order and direct that a fresh inquiry be conducted in accordance with the law. 8. Learned Government Pleader filed counter-affidavit and submitted that as per the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kadiri, the then Tahsildar, Puttaparthi, has entered the name of the 5th respondent. The petitioner has approached this Court after lapse of several years. 9. Respondent No.5 has not filed any counter-affidavit but has relied on the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.4. 10. Upon perusal of the revenue records, it is clear the petitioner was granted DKT Patta for the land admeasuring Ac.4.42 cents in Sy.No.681/4 and his name was reflected in the revenue records and it shows petitioner has an interest in the property. The appeal can reasonably be interpreted to mean the decision will adversely affect the petitioner's rights. As the rights of a party are affected, the petitioner must be deemed to be interested in the appeal's result. 11. Therefore, the present Writ Petition is disposed of by setting aside the order dated 30.08.2017, and the 3rd respondent is directed to conduct an enquiry afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as the 6 earlier order was passed without any notice to petitioner. It is needless to say that the said exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible, and in any event, not later than six (06) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The parties are directed to cooperate for the expeditious disposal of the appeal. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 03.12.2025 KBN 7 205 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.22332 of 2023 Date: 03.12.2025 KBN