APHC010566382023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.29738 of 2023 Between: 1. TIRUMANDYAM GURUNADHAM REDDY, S/O. TIRUMANDYAM VENKATA SUYBBA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/O. H.NO. 8-86, PANNERU KALVA, THUKIVAKAM RURAL, CHITTOOR, CHITTOR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. (PRESENTLY TIRUPATHI DISTRICT) 3. THE JOINT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORS OFFICE TIRUPATHI, CHITTOR DISTRICT (PRESENTLY TIRUPATHI DISTRICT) ' 4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, SRIKALAHASTHI , CHITTOR DISTRICT, PRESENTLY TIRUPATHI DISTRICT 5. THE TAHSILDAR, RENIGUNTA MANDAL,CHITTOOR DISTRICT (PRESENTLY TIRUPATHI 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 a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction declaring the order passed by the 3rd Respondent herein in Vide RC D2/338/2023, dated 19.10.2023 as arbitrary, illegal, un just, contrary to the material available on record and without jurisdiction and consequently direct the Respondents herein to incorporate the name of the petitioner in all the Revenue Records 2 including Web Land Adangal , for land measuring an extent of Ac.1.01 cents in Survey No.717B1/4B, situate in Thukivakam Village, Renigunta Mandal, Chittoor District (Presently Tirupathi District). Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. T NAGARJUNA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: 3 ORDER: The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief: "….to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction declaring the order passed by the 3rd Respondent herein in Vide RC D2/338/2023, dated 19.10.2023 as arbitrary, illegal, unjust, contrary to the material available on record and without jurisdiction and consequently direct the Respondents herein to incorporate the name of the petitioner in all the Revenue Records including Web Land Adangal, for land measuring an extent of Ac.1.01 cents in Survey No.717B1/4B, situate in Thukivakam Village, Renigunta Mandal, Chittoor District (Presently Tirupathi District) and pass such other orders……" 2. Respondent No.3 issued the proceedings dated 19.10.2023, wherein it was mentioned that the land in Sy.No.717/B1 of an extent of Acs.5.84 cents is noted as ‘Anadeenam’ (Assessed Waste); as per Register of Holdings, the land in Sy.No.717/B1 cannot be de-notified and recommended to de-notify the land to an extent of Ac.1.01 cents in Sy.No.717/B1 of Thukivakam Village, Renigunta Mandal from the list of prohibited properties. 3. The proceedings dated 19.10.2023 was challenged before this Court on the ground that once the land is Assessed Waste as per the Rights of Holdings Register, it means that it is a Private Patta land, but the respondent authorities interpreted as if it is a Government land; and the present impugned proceedings are run contrary to the earlier communication sent by the then Tahsildar dated 13.02.2023 and contrary to the proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 10.04.2023. In the said proceedings, the Tahsildar, Renigunta has 4 recommended to de-notify the land from the prohibited lands, as the petitioner had purchased the land in the year 1979 and is enjoying the land since 40 years, as seen from Adangals, basing on the proceedings of the Tahsildar, dated 13.02.2023 to the Revenue Divisional Officer was recommended to de-notify the land from the prohibited list. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, despite specific recommendation made by the Tahsildar and the Revenue Divisional Officer, the Collector & District Magistrate, Kurnool, has not considered or address the recommendation made by the Tahsildar and the Revenue Divisional Officer for de-notifying the land in Sy.No.717/B1 to an extent of Ac.1.01 cents from the prohibited list for incorporation in the revenue records. 5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader would fairly admitted that the District Collector in the impugned proceedings failed to consider or address the recommendation made by the Tahsildar and the Revenue Divisional Officer, and therefore stated that the impugned order may be set aside and the matter may be remanded to the District Collector, for fresh consideration pursuant to the recommendation made by the Tahsildar and the Revenue Divisional Officer. 6. On perusal of the impugned proceedings, there is no reference of the recommendations made by the Tahsildar and the Revenue Divisional Officer in the impugned order. Hence, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned proceedings and remit the matter back to the Joint Collector for fresh consideration. 5 7. In view of the above, the Writ Petition disposed of. The proceedings dated 19.10.2023 issued by respondent No.3 are set aside. The matter is remitted to respondent No.3-Joint Collector, Collectors Office, Tirupathi, Chittoor District, to reconsider the case of the petitioner, pursuant to the recommendations made by the Tahsildar to the Revenue Divisional Officer vide proceedings dated 13.02.2023 and the Revenue Divisional Officer to the District Collector vide proceedings dated 10.04.2023 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 05.11.2025 siva 6 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.29738 of 2023 Date: 05.11.2025 siva