APHC010434392019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH SATURDAY, THE TWENTY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA WRIT PETITION No: Between: 1. GADI MASTHANAMMA, W/o. SUBBULAIAH, AGED ABOUT OCC- HOUSE WIFE, R/o. JUVVALAPALEM (VILLAGE AND POST), NAIDUPETA MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 1. THE STATE OF AP, THE STATE OF A.P., REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, NAIDUPETA MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 4. EEGA VENKAIAH, S/o. RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT JUVVALAPALEM (VILLAGE SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 5. EEGA VENU, S/O. VENKAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YRS, R/O. JUVVALAPALEM (VILLAGE AND POST), NAIDUPETA MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 6. THE DISTRICT FOREST OFFCER, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. R6 IS IMPLEADED AS PER CO DT 31/10/2022 VIDE IA 01/2020 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA WRIT PETITION No: 20884 of 2019 GADI MASTHANAMMA, W/o. SUBBULAIAH, AGED ABOUT HOUSE WIFE, R/o. JUVVALAPALEM (VILLAGE AND POST), NAIDUPETA MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND THE STATE OF AP, THE STATE OF A.P., REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. THE TAHSILDAR, NAIDUPETA MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. EEGA VENKAIAH, S/o. RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT - JUVVALAPALEM (VILLAGE AND POST), NAIDUPETA MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. EEGA VENU, S/O. VENKAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YRS, R/O. JUVVALAPALEM (VILLAGE AND POST), NAIDUPETA MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. THE DISTRICT FOREST OFFCER, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. R6 IS IMPLEADED AS PER CO DT 31/10/2022 VIDE IA 01/2020 ...RESPONDENT(S): IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3209] DAY OF NOVEMBER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA GADI MASTHANAMMA, W/o. SUBBULAIAH, AGED ABOUT - 60 YRS, HOUSE WIFE, R/o. JUVVALAPALEM (VILLAGE AND POST), ...PETITIONER THE STATE OF AP, THE STATE OF A.P., REP. BY ITS PRL. SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. THE TAHSILDAR, NAIDUPETA MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 70 YRS, R/O. AND POST), NAIDUPETA MANDAL, EEGA VENU, S/O. VENKAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YRS, R/O. JUVVALAPALEM (VILLAGE AND POST), NAIDUPETA MANDAL, THE DISTRICT FOREST OFFCER, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. R6 IS IMPLEADED AS PER CO DT 31/10/2022 VIDE IA 01/2020 ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. Mr.V.ROOPESH KUMAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR FORESTS (AP) 2. GP FOR REVENUE (AP) 3. Mr.A.GIRIDHAR RAO 3 The Court made the following Order: The writ petition is filed seeking to declare the high handed action of the respondents in trying to dispossess the petitioner from the land of an extent of Ac.2.50 cents in Survey No.95 of Juvvalapalem Village, SPSR Nellore District, without considering the fact that the petitioner is landless poor and following the due procedure as illegal, arbitrary etc., and for consequential directions. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr.K.Arjun Chowdary, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3 and Mr.G.V.Sri Rama Murthy, representing the respondents 4 and 5. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that the petitioner is cultivating the above said extent of land by raising eucalyptus trees and is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same for the last thirty years. He submits that the name of the petitioner was entered in the enjoyer’s column of the revenue records / Adangal Pahani for the year 2009-2010. While that being the position, the learned counsel submits that the revenue authorities at the behest of respondents 4 and 5 made attempts to dispossess the petitioner from the subject matter land and interfere with the possession, without following due process of Law. He submits that such an action on the part of the official respondents is not tenable and therefore, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 4 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the unofficial respondents made submissions with reference to the averments made in the detailed counter-affidavit dated 01.02.2020. While stoutly denying the submissions that the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the subject matter property, the learned counsel submits that a D-Form Patta in the name of Community Joint Farming Society (CJFS), Juvvalapalem Village of Naidupet Mandal for an extent of Ac.49.00 cents in Survey No.95 was issued. He submits that the possession of the said extent of land was handed over to the members of CJFS, in which the 4th respondent is a member and the 5th respondent is not a beneficiary of CJFS. He submits that as stated in the counter-affidavit, the petitioner is neither in possession and enjoyment of the subject matter land i.e., Ac.2.50 cents in Survey No.95 of Juvvalapalem village nor a member of CJFS. Referring to the material filed along with the counter-affidavit i.e., Proceedings of the District Collector and President / Chairman, District Scheduled Castes Service Cooperation Society and District Level Committee Backward Classes Co-operative Finance Corporation, Nellore dated 20.11.1976 in the list annexed thereto, the learned counsel further contends that the CJFS members (49 members) are in possession and enjoyment of the land and as the writ petitioner is trying to enter into the land allotted to CJFS members, a complaint is also lodged with the Station House Officer, Naidupet. Be that as it may. Be that as it may. He submits that the petitioner only with a malafide intention and to deprive the members of the CJFS including the respondent 5 No.4 from enjoying the yield / income derived from the subject matter land, filed the present writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader made submissions on behalf of the revenue authorities. Drawing the attention of this Court to the relevant material on record, he submits that the petitioner is not in possession of the subject matter land and in fact, the husband of the petitioner was working as Village Revenue Assistant at the relevant point of time and getting Rs.10,500/- as honorarium. He further submits that in fact an extent of Ac.151.72 cents in Survey No.95 of Juvvalapalem Village is classified as ‘Forest Porambok’ as per the village records, out of which, an extent of Ac.19.25 cents is under the effective possession and enjoyment of 49 ST (Yenadi families) at the time of filing of the writ petition and at that stage the petitioner (wife of the Village Revenue Assistant) was instructed not to enter into the lands which is classified as “Forest Land” and in the possession of the above said 49 ST families. He also submits that as per his latest instructions, the land is vacant. He submits that at the time of verification of the village records, the name of the writ petitioner was noted in manual adangal for Fasli 1415 with pencil only and as submitted earlier, Survey No.95 of Juvvalapalem Village is recorded as “Adavi Poramboke”. In the light of the said entries, the learned counsel submits that a show cause notice was issued to the Village Revenue Assistant (husband of the writ petitioner) vide Proceedings Rc.B.430 of 2022 dated 20.11.2022 calling for explanation and that as the said Village Revenue Assistant died on 11.11.2024, no further action was taken. Be that as it may. 6 The learned counsel submits that as the subject matter land is Adavi Porambok (forest land) and as the petitioner is not in possession of the same, no relief as sought for may be granted. 6. Mr.T.S.Rayalau, learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the Forest Department submits that as per the Joint Inspection conducted on 16.10.2018 by the officials of the Revenue, Forest and Survey Department to ascertain the extent of Rosanur Reserved Forest Area notified vide G.O.Ms.No.978 Forest and Rural Development (Forest-III) Department dated 03.11.1976 and the details of the extent of Rosanuru Forest etc., are set out in Para No.3 of the counter-affidavit and as per the inspection report, the existing Eucalyptus plantation was raised by Social Forestry Division of Forest Department. He submits that the petitioner’s request for allotment of subject land which is classified as “Forest” cannot be granted as it would be in violation of Section 2 of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. Making the said submissions, the counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents urges for dismissal of the writ petition. 8. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner referring to Memo No.52548/VO.I/96-1 dated 23.08.1996 submits that the Government had decided to assign Banjar Lands to Village Servants on par with the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes and other weaker sections as per the Rules in force, subject to their eligibility. The Government directed all the Collectors to assign Government lands to the Village Servants on par with the different sections referred to therein, if they are eligible as per 7 the Rules in force. He submits that the subject matter land was accordingly assigned to the petitioner in terms of the said Memo. He also submits that Adangal / Pahani copy for the year 2009-2010 is not manual and in fact, it refers to the application made by the petitioner herein and her name is shown in the enjoyers’ column. He submits that the contentions contra are, therefore, not sustainable and the petitioner is entitled for the reliefs prayed for. 9. This Court has considered the submissions made and perused the material on record. 10. At the outset, it may be pertinent to mention that there is no dispute that the petitioner is the wife of Village Revenue Assistant. It is also not in dispute that the District Collector / respondent No.2 directed the Tahsildar i.e., the 3rd respondent to initiate action against the petitioner’s husband as he allegedly manipulated the records and incorporated the name of his wife, who is the petitioner herein. Further, as per the counter-affidavit of respondent No.3, the petitioner is not in a possession of the subject matter land. No reply-affidavit is filed contradicting the stand taken by the official respondents and as such, the same are deemed to have been admitted. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for the prayer sought for. That apart, though a contention was advanced to the effect that the land in question was assigned to the petitioner by virtue of the Memo dated 23.08.1996 referred to supra, there is no pleading in the affidavit with regard to the same. A copy of the assignment / proceedings in favour of the petitioner assigning the land was filed, either. On the contrary the case of the petitioner as per Para No.3 of the writ affidavit is 8 that she is making repeated representations to the 2nd and 3rd respondents for granting assignment in her favour in respect of an extent of Ac.2.50 cents in Survey No.95 of Juvvalapalem Village. Therefore, the reliance on the Memo referred to above and the argument advanced on the basis of the same, merits no appreciation. 11. With regard to the contention that the Adangal Pahani reflects the petitioner’s name in the enjoyers’ column, it is settled position in Law that the entries in the revenue records do not confer title. Further, the said Adangal Pahani was for the year 2009-2010. Except that, no other material was filed, which goes to show that as on the date of filing of the writ petition in the year 2019, the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the subject matter land. Therefore, Ex.P1-Adangal / Pahani copy does not render any assistance to the case of the petitioner. Further, as noted earlier, in view of the irregularities allegedly committed by the husband of the petitioner in incorporating her name by manipulation of the records, the District Collector vide Communication dated 20.11.2022 directed the 3rd respondent, who is the competent authority to take necessary disciplinary action against the husband of the petitioner, who was a Village Revenue Assistant. Though a direction was issued to the Tahsildar to submit a detailed factual report and initiate necessary action, the 3rd respondent except issuing a Show Cause Notice dated 23.11.2022, had not taken any further action, much less submitting a detailed factual report as per the instructions of the 2nd respondent-District Collector. The very same Tahsildar, who issued the Notice dated 23.11.2022 9 is presently discharging the functions at the very same place. It may also be pertinent to mention that as per the information available with the learned Assistant Government Pleader, the husband of the petitioner submitted his reply to the Show Cause Notice and died at some time in 2024 and no answer is forthcoming from the Tahsildar as to why he has not taken any further action, after issuing the Show Cause Notice referred to above. 12. This Court, considering the matter in its entirety and in view of the conclusions referred to above, is not inclined to exercise the extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, more particularly as the petitioner failed to establish that her rights if any, in respect of the subject matter lands, are infringed by the official respondents. 13. Before parting with this order, it may be pertinent to mention that obviously, in view of the seriousness of the issue, the District Collector directed the 3rd respondent / Tahsildar to submit a report by taking action. The 3rd respondent entrusted with task of enquiry and submission of the report failed to take necessary action. In such an event, the District Collector should have called for an explanation from the 3rd respondent and examined as to whether there is any justification for not taking any action in the matter; but the same was not done for the reasons not known. The lackadaisical approach of the concerned M.R.Os., give scope for manipulation of records and continuation of illegalities, which cannot be countenanced. Therefore, the 3rd respondent shall look into the matter and do the needful as per the procedure / relevant Rules. 10 14. With the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed as devoid of merits. No costs. Consequently, all pending applications shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA BLV Dt. 22.11.2025 11 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA W.P.No: 20884 of 2019 Date: 22.11.2025 BLV