APHC010295402023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3529] MONDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT APPEAL NO: 880/2023 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent be pleased to allow the Writ Appeal by setting aside the Order,dated05.09.2022 made in W.P.No.25789 of 2016and pass such Between: 1. N KRISHNA VENI, W/O.VENKATA RAMI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, RIO. DOOR NO.3/132, PRABHAS NAGAR, PRODDATURTOWN AND MANDAL, Y.S.R. DISTRICT ...APPELLANT AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP., BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIATBUILDINGS, SECRETARIAT, HYDERABAD. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ,Y.S.R.DISTRICT, KADAPA. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, JAMMALAMADUGU REVENUE DIVISION, JAMMALAMADUGU, Y.S.R. DISTRICT. 4. THE THASILDHAR, MYDUKUR MANDAL Y.S.R.DISTRICT. 5. RACHAGOLLA VENKATA RAMANA, , S/O.CHINNA VENKATA SUBBAIAH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O.G.V.SATHRAM, NANDYALAMPETAVILLAGE, MYDUKUR MANDAL, Y.S.R DISTRICT. 6. CHENNAM LAKSHMI NARAYANA REDDY, S/O. PEDDA NARAYANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, OCC. AGRICULTURE, 2 RRR,J & TCDS,J W.A.No.880 of 2023 R/O.G.V.SATHRAM, NANDYALAMPETAVILLAGE, MYDUKUR MANDAL, Y.S.R DISTRICT. 7. RACHAGOLLA VENKATA SUBBAIAH, S/O.CHINNA VENKATA SUBBAIAH, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, OCC.AGRICULTURE, R/O.G.V.SATHRAM, NANDYALAMPETAVILLAGE, MYDUKUR MANDAL, Y.S.R DISTRICT. 8. RACHAGOLLA HARITHA, W/O.HARI BABU, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, OCC. AGRICULTURE, RIO.G.V.SATHRAM, NANDYALAMPETAVILLAGE, MYDUKUR MANDAL, Y.S.R DISTRICT. 9. RACHAGOLLAGURRAMMA, W/O.CHINNA VENKATA SUBBAIAH, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O.G.V.SATHRAM, NANDYALAMPETAVILLAGE, MYDUKUR MANDAL, Y.S.R DISTRICT. 10. MURATHOTI GRACE CHANDRA LEELAVATHI, W/O.JOJAPPPA, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O.G.V.SATHRAM, NANDYALAMPETAVIL LAGE, MYDUKUR MANDAL, Y.S.R DISTRICT. 11. MURATHOTIRATHNAVATHI, , W/O.PREMA KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O.G.V.SATHRAM, NANDYALAMPETAVILLAGE, MYDUKUR MANDAL, Y.S.R DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 may be pleased to condemn the delay of 158 days in presenting the appeal and pass such IA NO: 2 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 may be pleased to suspend the D-Form Pattas issued in favor of respondents No.5 to 11 through the D.K.T.Nos.402/1419, dated 10-12-2010, D.K.T.No.44/1412, dated 01-05-2009, D.K.T.No.174/1419, D.K.T.No.176/1419, dated dated 06-02-2010, 06-02-2010, D.K.T.No.175/1419, dated 06-02-2010, D.K.T.No.83/1416, dated 03-01-2007 and D.K.T.No.85/1416, dated 03-01¬2007 issued by the respondent No.4 and 3 RRR,J & TCDS,J W.A.No.880 of 2023 also the consequential order in R.Dis/DT(2)/3577/2014, dated 11-02-2016 issued by the respondent No.3, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and pass such IA 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 pleased to grant leave to me i.e., respondent No.3 in filing the counter affidavit in the above writ appeal on my behalf and to receive the same on file and pass IA NO: 2 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 may be pleased to receive the reply affidavit by allowing the leave petition and pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. V R REDDY KOVVURI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. KARRI MURALI KRISHNA 4 RRR,J & TCDS,J W.A.No.880 of 2023 The Court made the following Judgment: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) The appellant claims ownership over Ac.5.12 cents of land, in Sy.No.564/1 of Nandyalampet Village fields, Mydukur Mandal, Y.S.R. District through three registered deeds of sale, Ac.4.12 cents of land in Sy.No.566 and Ac.2.97 cents of land in Sy.No.567, purchased by her and her brother, by way of a deed of sale, dated 02.07.1992, which is registered as document No.1540 of 1992 and relinquishment deed, dated 12.07.1999, executed by her brother in her favour. 2. The appellant contends that, she had been issued pattadar passbooks and title deeds, in relation to these lands and had been in possession and enjoyment of the said property, when the Tahsildar issued pattadar passbooks and title deeds in favour of the respondents 5 to 11. Aggrieved by the grant of issuance of these pattadar passbooks and title deeds, the appellant approached the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, by way of W.P.No.30778 of 2012, which came to be disposed of, on 03.10.2012. A learned Single Judge of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, had disposed of the Writ Petition, leaving it open to the appellant to prefer an Appeal under Section 5 (5) of the ROR Act, 1971, after impleading the affected parties. Pursuant to this Order, the appellant moved an Appeal before the 3rd respondent – Revenue Divisional Officer. This Appeal came to be dismissed, on 11.02.2016, on the grounds and findings set out in the said Order. 5 RRR,J & TCDS,J W.A.No.880 of 2023 3. Aggrieved by the said Order, dated 11.02.2016, the appellant again approached this Court, by way of W.P.No.25789 of 2016, which came to be dismissed, on 05.09.2022. The learned Single Judge, while dismissing the Writ Petition, left it open to the appellant to establish her right, possession and title, in an appropriate proceeding. 4. Aggrieved by this Order of Dismissal, the appellant has approached this Court, by way of the present Writ Appeal. 5. Sri V. R. Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for the appellant, would contend that, the findings of the Revenue Divisional Officer, in the Order, dated 11.02.2016, are misplaced and are not in accordance with law. He would submit that, the Revenue Divisional Officer, ought to have appreciated the fact that, the name of the appellant continues to remain in the revenue records and that, fresh pattadar passbooks and title deeds had been issued to the private respondents, even while the pattadar passbooks and title deeds issued to the appellant remained in force. The learned counsel would also contend that, the finding of the Revenue Divisional Officer that, the land was Government land and that, the deeds of sale obtained by the appellant are not valid, could not have been given by the Revenue Divisional Officer. 6. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned counsel appearing for the private respondents, had opined that the issues of fact, which cannot be dealt with by this Court had been raised and that, it would be appropriate that such issues are dealt within a properly instituted litigation. 6 RRR,J & TCDS,J W.A.No.880 of 2023 7. Having heard Sri V. R. Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for the appellant and Smt. Sodum Anvesha, learned counsel for the private respondents, we are in agreement with the view of the learned Single Judge that various disputed questions of fact arise in the present litigation and it would only be appropriate that, such disputed questions are dealt with by an appropriate authority, who can go into all these questions and decide title of the property. 8. In such circumstances, this Writ Appeal is disposed of, leaving it open to the appellant to approach an appropriate Authority, including a Court of Law for a decision on the right and title claim of the appellant over the said lands and the right and title claim of the private respondents over the said lands. 9. Needless to say, any proceedings initiated by the appellant would be decided by the appropriate authority, without being bound, in any manner, by the findings given by the Revenue Divisional Officer or by this Court. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J _________________ T.C.D. SEKHAR, J Date:13.10.2025 KPV 7 RRR,J & TCDS,J W.A.No.880 of 2023 75 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT APPEAL No:880 of 2023 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) 13.10.2025 KPV