IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVAJ^ MONDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT O /. fill o THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO WRIT APPEAL Nos: 184 AND 187 OF 2025 WRIT APPEAL NO: 184 OF 2025 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the common order dated 30-01-2025 in W.P.No.6937/2025 and 10282 of 2007 on the file of the High Court. Between: Cherukuri Srinivasulu, S/o. Venkateswarlu, Aged about 60 years, R/o D No 4-109 Jammala Palem, Jaladanki, SPSR Nellore District. ...APPELLANT/PETITIONER AND 1. The Joint Collector, Prakasam District, Ongole, AP. 2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kanigiri, Prakasam District, Erstwhile Kandukur, Prakasam District, Andha Pradesh 3. The Tahsildar (Mandal Revenue Officer), Chandrasekhara Puram (C.S.Puram) Prakasam District. 4. Pavuluri Narayanamma, W/o. Narasaiah R/o.Pedagogulapalli Village C.S. Puram Mandal, Prakasam District. ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 to 4 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 not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner in the land measuring Ac. 5.00 Cents in Sy No.389/1 of Pedagogulapalli Village, C.S. Puram Mandal, Prakasam i District, pending disposal of Writ appeal. ^ lA NO: 2 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 suspend the operation of the proceedings in D. Dis. No. 539/2007 dated 01-05-2007 of the 2'"'^ respondent, pending disposal of Writ appeal. Counsel for the Appellant: Mrs. KAVITHA GOTTIPATI Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 : GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : SRI MADHAVA RAO NALLURI WRIT APPEAL NO: 187 OF 2025 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Palent against the order dated 30-01- 2025 d in W.P.No. 6937 of 2007 ^ And^^WtS^e cugt^Court. Between: Cherukuri Sriniyasulu, S/o. Venkateswarlu Aged about 60 years, R/o. D No 4- 109 Jammala Palem, Jaladanki, SPSR Nellore District. ...APPELLANT/PETITIONER AND 1. The Joint Collector, Prakasam District, Ongole, AP. 2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kanigiri, Prakasam District, ( Erstwhile Kandukur, Prakasam District) Andhra Pradesh. It* oTf (Mandal Revenue Officer), Chandrasekhara Puram (C.S.Puram) Prakasam District, Andhra Pradesh Narayanamma, W/o Narasaiah R/o.Pedagogulapalli Village C.S. Puram Mandal, Prakasam District. « « ^ y ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 to 4 f lA NO: 1 OF 202S 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 the proceedings in D.Dis.No.E2/2318/2005 dated 13-03-2007 of the 1"* respondent including the dispossession of the petitioner in respect of an extent of Ac. 5.00 Cents in Sy No.389/1 of Pedagogulapalli Village, C.S. Puram Mandal, Prakasam District, pending disposal of Writ appeal. Counsel for the Appellant: Mrs. KAVITHA GOTTIPATI Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 : GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : SRI MADHAVA RAO NALLURI The Court made the following: COMMON JUDGMENT 1 RRR,J & Dr.KMR.J W.A.NOS.184& 187/2025 APHC010103112025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3525] MONDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT APPEAL Nos:184 & 187 of 2025 W.ft.Nos.184& 187/2025 Between: ...APPELLANT Cherukuri Srinivasulu AND ...RESPONDENT(S) The Joint Collector and Others Counsel for the Appellant: 1.KAVITHA GOTTIPATI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR REVENUE 2.MADHAVA RAO NALLURI The Court made the following common judgment: (pertion’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) As the issues raised and the grounds of challenge to the impugned order in these writ appeals are similar, they are being disposed of by way of this common judgment. W.A.NOS.184& 187/2025 2- Heard Sm(. Kavitha appellant; learned G.P Madhavara Rao Nalluri, Qottipati, (earned counsel appearing for respondents appearing for the 4^^ appearing for the to 3 and Sri respondent. for Revenue learned counsel The appellant herein Sy.No.389/1 of District, by way of D-form appellant is also admeasuring Ac.1. village. Thereafter, and his mother disputes resulted I dudge, Kanigiri. \ tied been granted Ac.5.00 D C. Puram of land in Mandal, Prakasam Similarly, the mother Podagogulapalle Village Patta, dated 30.06.1994. said to have been of the granted D-form 87 cents and Ac.3.29 cents i - disputes patta in respect of land '0 Sy.No.389/2 of the same are said to have ari - arisen between the i-espondent on the other si petitioner side. These on the file of the Junior on one side and the 4*'" in filing of O.S.No.243 of 2004 Civil 4. As there the Tahsildar of the area, were allegations of who is tampering of arrayed as the 3''^ revenue records etc. respondent, visited the Sdbject property on 21.03.2007 and the Joint Collector had IS said to have informed the appellant that cancelled the patta i'ssued in favour of the Aggrieved by the said order of appellant, appellant filed W.P.No.6937 cancellation, the • This writ petition 2007 dated 13.03.2007 However, the of was dismissed Judge was: hy order dated 22.01.2009 and the on 18.07.2007. order of the learned Single in W.A.No.876 of 2007 set aside by a Division Bench i rnatter was remanded back for fresh consideration. 3 RRR,J & Dr.KMR,J W.A.NOS.184& 187/2025 On the basis of the cancellation of patta, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kandukuru, who is arrayed as the 2’"^ respondent, cancelled the pattadar passbook and title deed granted in favour of the petitioner. This 5. cancellation is said to be in furtherance of the orders passed by the Joint Collector, dated 13.03.2007. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellantmoved this Court by way of W.P.No. 10282 of 2007. th 6. The case of the Revenue Authorities as well as the 4 respondent, in both these cases, was that the 4 respondent had been assigned the same land by way of proceedings F.Dis.No. 18/1395, dated 02.07.1985, and she was in possession and enjoyment of the same. The further case of the official respondents is that the same land was assigned to the appellant herein by oversight and as such the subsequent patta would not be valid. It appears that the appellant is now presently residing in United States of America and working as software professional. The case of the appellant is that the assignment claimed in favour of the 4*^ respondent is a fictitious assignment and has been created by manipulating the revenue records. The further case of the appellant was that 7. the Revenue Divisional Officer could not have cancelled the pattadar passbook and title deed by way of a suo moto appeal, when there was no order passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, and reliance was placed on "N 4 RRR,J & Dr.KMR.J W.A.Nos.184 & 187/2025 Ratnamma vs. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmavaram, Ananthapur District and Ors.,\ 8. A learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed both the writ petitions by way of a common order. The learned Single Judge, after going through the record placed before him, had come to the conclusion that there was a genuine assignment of land to the 4*^ respondent in the year 1985 and that the contention of the appellant that there was no said assignment, cannot be accepted. On the question of applicability of the judgment of the erstwhile High Court of A.P., in Ratnamma vs. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmavaram, Ananthapur District and Ors., the learned Single Judge held that a suo moto appeal, by the Revenue Divisional Officer, without any underlying order of the Mandal Revenue Officer is not maintainable, in view of the judgment of the erstwhile High Court of A.P. in Ratnamma vs. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmavaram, Ananthapur District and Ors. However, the learned Single Judge held that this is not a case where the pattadar passbook and title deed were cancelled in pursuance of the entries made in the revenue records. He also held that as the pattadar passbook and title deed were cancelled on account of the cancellation of the patta granted in favour of the appellant, the judgment in Ratnamma vs. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmavaram, Ananthapur District and Ors., would not l^ave any application. ^ (2015) 6 ALD 609 (DB) = (2015) 5 ALT 228 = 2015 SCC Online Hyd 282 5 RRR,J & Dr.KMR.J W.A.Nos.184 & 187/2025 9. We have been taken through the record and had not been shown anything to hold contrary to the findings of the learned Single Judge. Once the patta had already been granted to an assignee, the same land could not be assigned to any other person as long as the patta holds the field. In the present case, the patta issued to the 4*^ respondent was not cancelled, appellant has to be set aside. As the the pattadar passbook and title passed by the Joint Collector Consequently, the patta given to the Revenue Divisional Officer had cancelled deed, on the basis of the order of cancellation the principles laid down i “ Dharmavaram, Ananthapur District and Ors. m Ratnamma vs. The Revenue Divisional Officer, case would not be applicable. Accordingly, these writ appeals are dismissed. There shall be a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if 10. no order as to costs. As any. shall stand closed. Sd/- K. TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// To, SECTION OFFICER 1. One CC to Mrs. Kavitha Gottipati, Advocate [OPUC] 2. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, 3. One CC to Sri Madhava 4. Three C.D. Copies. High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] Rao Nalluri, Advocate (OPUC) Cnr high court CNR DATED.05/05/2025 COMMON JUDGMENT WA.Nos.184 and 187 of 2025 S 29 MAY 2025 S ★ //O SSrcOSTs"™^'''’'’"'-®