APHC010164982021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 9276/2021 Between: 1. CH. KARUNAKAR REDDY,, S/O PITCHI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, 2. CH. JANARDHAN REDDY,, S/O PITCHI REDDY, AGED ABAOUT 65 YEARS, 3. CH. BHAKTAVATSAL REDDY,, S/O PITCHI. REDDY, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, 4. CH. SRINIVASULU REDDY,, S/O PUITCHI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, 5. CH. HARISCHANDRA REDDY,, S/O PITCHI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, 6. Y. VENKU REDDY ( DIED), S/O MALLA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS, 7. YEKOLLU VIJAYARAMI REDDY, S/O LATE VENKU REDDY, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O OGURUPADU VILLAGE, NELLORE MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. PETITIONER NO.7 IS BROUGHT ON RECORD AS L.R OF THE DECEASED 6TH PETITIONER AS PER THE COURT'S ORDER DT.23.11.2024 IN I.A.NO.01 OF 2023. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT A.P. SECRETARIAT, 2 VS,J W.P.No.9276 of 2021 VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, A.P. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT, NELLORE, 3. THE TAHASILDAR, , NELLORE RURAL MANDAL, NELLORE. 4. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, NELLORE CIRCLE, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, (IRRIGATION AND CAD DEPARTMENT) RAMALINGAPURAM, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, NELLORE CENTRAL DIVISION, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, (IRRIGATION AND CAD DEPARTMENT) RAMALINGAPURAM, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 6. THE DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, NELLORE SUB DIVISION, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENTS, (IRRIGATION AND CAD DEPARTMENT) RAMALINGAPURAM, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT 7. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, NELLORE SUB DIVISION, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENTS, (IRRIGATION AND CAD DEPARTMENT) RAMALINGAPURAM, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE 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 an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.2 in including the land in an extent of Ac. 4.88 cents in Sy.No.1076/l of Basinikonda Village Fields, Madanapalli Mandal, Chittoor District in the prohibitory lands list communicated to the Registration Department under Section 22-A(1)(a) of the Registration Act, 1908 and the consequential action of the respondent No.5 in refusing to entertain the Sale Deeds for registration referring to the same as arbitrary, illegal, colorable exercise of power and contrary to the procedure envisaged under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908, G.O.Ms.No.279, Revenue (ASSN.1) Department, dated 041)7.2016 and well established legal principles apart from being violative of fundamental and Constitutional rights guaranteed to us under Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent No.5 to 3 VS,J W.P.No.9276 of 2021 entertain the Sale Deeds for registration for the land in an extent of Ac. 4.48 cents in Sy.No.1076/1 of Basinikonda Village Fields, Madanapalle Mandal, Chittoor District by setting aside the prohibitory lands list furnished by the respondent No.2 under Section 22-A(1)(a) of the Registration Act, 1908 and pass such other order or orders as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. IA NO: 1 OF 2021 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 respondents or their sub ordinates not to dispossess the petitioners from an extent of 15 acres of dry land comprised in Old Sy. No. 1 and RS No.27 of ei.-Igurupadu Village, Nellore Rural Mandal, SPSR Nellore District IA NO: 2 OF 2021 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 vacate the interim orders dated:03.05.2021 passed in W.P.No.9276 of 2021 and 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 to permit the proposed 7th petitioner herein to come on record in place of the deceased 6th petitioner herein as his legal representative and prosecute the above writ petition in place of the 6th petitioner herein and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. P SRIDHAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. GP FOR IRRI AND CAD (AP) The Court made the following: 4 VS,J W.P.No.9276 of 2021 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 the respondents in seeking to dispossess the petitioners from an extent of 15 acres of dry land in old Sy.No.1 and R.S.No.27, situated in Ougurupadu Village, Nellore Rural Mandal, SPSR Nellore District in respect of which a Ryotwari patta has been granted in proceedings No.SR15/11a/NLR/63, dated 30.03.1968 u/s 11 (a) of A.P. Estates Abolition (Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1946 as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the above extent of 15 acres in any manner whatsoever….= 2. When the matter came up for admission on 03.05.2021, this Court passed the following interim order: <…..Prima facie, looking at the proceedings of granting patta to the petitioners, earlier writ petitions and the order of the Commissioner, which reveals that patta has been granted in favour of the petitioners and it is in force. In view of the same, there shall be an interim direction to the respondents not to interfere with the possession of the petitioners.= 3. The case of the petitioners is that way back on 30.03.1968, a patta was granted in favour of the petitioners for an extent of Ac.15.00 cents of land under the Estate Abolition Act vide proceedings SR.15/11(a)/NLR/63 and ever 5 VS,J W.P.No.9276 of 2021 since, they have been in continuous possession of the said property. Thereafter, the petitioners have continuously approached the respondents to implement the settlement patta. As the respondents failed to implement the settlement patta granted in their favour on 30.03.1968, the petitioners were constrained to file W.P.No.14738 of 2003 before this Court. Subsequently, when the request made by the petitioners for implementation of the settlement patta was rejected by the respondents vide orders dated 18.08.2004, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Appeals, who passed orders setting aside the orders of the Joint Collector vide proceedings dated 16.07.2013 by observing that he is not the appellate authority to sit over the order passed by the competent authority under Estate Abolition Act. It is further stated that, by virtue of the orders granting patta and subsequent orders of the Commissioner, the petitioners are in continuous possession of the said property. It is also the case of the petitioners that subsequently, on 09.11.2019, when the subordinates and staff of the respondents came to the petitioners’ land and started to dig a trench in their land on the premise that the land belongs to the Government, the petitioners filed W.P.No.18261 of 2019, wherein, on the instructions of the respondents that they are not interfering with the petitioners’ possession, the said writ petition was disposed of on 05.12.2019. However, the case of the petitioners that once again, on 20.04.2021, the respondents came to their land in large numbers and directed the petitioners to vacate the land on the ground that the land is in S.No.1 and not in S.No.27 and that said land belongs to the Government. 6 VS,J W.P.No.9276 of 2021 4. In view of the fact that the petitioners have been in possession of the said property by way of Settlement Patta granted on 30.03.1968, which has been subsequently upheld by the Commissioner on 16.07.2013, this Court feels it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition by directing the respondents not to interfere with the possession of the petitioners over the subject property till the settlement patta granted in favour of the petitioners is subsisting. 5. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Dated 22.09.2025 KGR