m APHC010571102&23 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) a WEDNESDAY.THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 29565 OF 2023 Between: 1. Mala Anjaneyulu, S/o Anjinappa, aged 37 years, R/0 5-122C, Gollapalli, Parigi, Nadimpalli Village, Somandepalle Mandal, Sri Satyasai District, Andhra Pradesh-515261. 2. Dubbarapalli Anil Kumar, S/0 D. Mala China Anjanappa, R/0 Nadimpalli Village, Somandepalle Mandal, Sri Satyasai District, Andhra Pradesh- 515261. ...Petitioners AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principle Secretary, Revenue Department, 4th Block, Ground Floor, Room No-135, A.P Secretariat Office, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur Dist, Andhra Pradesh. 2. The District Collector, Sri Satyasai District, Andhra Pradesh. 3. The Joint Collector of Sri Satyasai District, Andhra Pradesh. 4. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Penukonda, Sri Satyasai District, Andhra Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh 5. The Tahsildar, Somandepalle Mandal, Sri Satyasai District, Andhra Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh. 6. N Shafiula Khan, S/o N. Hameed Khan, D. No. 20-1-8, Nikamappali Village, Hindupur Mandal, Sri Sathya Sai District at Puttaparthy, Andhra Pradesh. ...Respondents IV Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the d^urhstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be . fl^ased to issue a Writ Order or direction particularly, one in the nature of writ dfij\/landamus declaring the action of respondents in issuing the Impugned Revision order vide its RC. No. 123/2016/F2 Dated 17/06/2023 passed by the 3rd respondent in cancelling the D Patta issued to the petitioners in DAR.Dis.No.40/ 1402 Dated 22/08/1993 and DAR.Dis.No.5/ 1412 Dated 04/10/2002 for the land in Survey No. 1-3 of extent Ac. 5.00 cents and Survey No. 6 of extent Ac. 4.92 cents in toto admeasuring of Ac. 9.92 cents situated at Nadimpalli Village, Somandepalle Mandal, Sri Satyasai District, Andhra Pradesh without following procedure established by the law as illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice and violative of Art 14,16,19,21 and 300-A of the Indian Constitution and consequently set aside the impugned Revision order vide its RC. No. 123/2016/F2 Dated 17/06/2023 duly directing the authorities not interfere over the subject land of the petitioner situated in Survey No. 1-3 of extent Ac. 5.00 cents and Survey No. 6 of extent Ac. 4.92 cents in to admeasuring of Ac. 9092 cents situated at Nadimapalli Village, Somandepalle Mandal, Sri Satyasai District, Andhra Pradesh except due process of law. lA 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 temporarily suspend the impugned Revision order passed vide its Order Ref. B/178/2023 Dated 18/03/2023 duly directing the authorities not to interfere over the land situated at Survey No. 1-3 of extent Ac. 5.00 cents and Survey No. 6 of extent Ac. 4.92 cents in to admeasuring of Ac. 9.92 cents situated at Nadimpalli Village, Somandepalle Mandal, Sri Satyasai District, Andhra Pradesh except due process of law and pass order or orders in accordance with law, pending disposal of the writ petition may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Between: The Joint Collector of Sri Satyasai District, Andhra Pradesh. ...Petitioner/Respondents AND 1. Mala Anjaneyulu, S/o Anjinappa, aged 37 years, R/0 5-122C, Gollapalli, Parigi, Nadimpalli Village, Somandepalle Mandal, Sri Satyasai District, Andhra Pradesh-515261. 2. Dubbarapalli Anil Kumar, S/0 D. Mala China Anjanappa, R/0 Nadimpalli Village, Somandepalle Mandal, Sri Satyasai District, Andhra Pradesh- 515261. ...Respondents/Petitioners 3. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principle Secretary, Revenue Department, 4th Block, Ground Floor, Room No-135, A.P Secretariat Office, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur Dist, Andhra Pradesh. 4. The District Collector, Sri Satyasai District, Andhra Pradesh. 5. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Penukonda, Sri Satyasai District, Andhra Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh 6. The Tahsildar, Somandepalle Mandal, Sri Satyasai District, Andhra Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh. 7. N Shafiula Khan, S/o N. Hameed Khan, D. No. 20-1-8, Nikamappali Village, Hindupur Mandal, Sri Sathya Sai District at Puttaparthy, Andhra Pradesh. (R3 and R7 are not necessary parties in this petition) ...Respondents/Respondents 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 order dated 15-11-2023 in lA No.1/2023 in WP.No. 29565/2023 and dismiss the writ petition. 1 lA NO: 2 OF 2024 Between: N Shafiula Khan, S/o N. Hameed Khan, D. No. 20-1-8, Nikamappali Village, Hindupur Mandal, Sri Sathya Sai District at Puttaparthy, Andhra Pradesh. ...Petitioners/ 6^^ Respondent AND 1. Mala Anjaneyulu, S/o Anjinappa, aged 37 years, R/0 5-122C, Gollapalli, Parigi, Nadimpalli Village, Somandepalle Mandal, Sri Satyasai District, Andhra Pradesh-515261. 2. Dubbarapalli Anil Kumar, S/0 D. Mala China Anjanappa, R/0 Nadimpalli Village, Somandepalle Mandal, Sri Satyasai District, Andhra Pradesh-515261. ...Writ Petitioners/ Respondents rep. by its Principle Secretary, Revenue Department, 4th Block, Ground Floor, Room No-135 Secretariat Office, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur Dist, Andhra Pradesh. 4. The District Collector, Sri Satyasai District, Andhra Pradesh. 5. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Penukonda, Sri Satyasai District, Andhra Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh 6. The Tahsildar, Somandepalle Mandal, Sri Satyasai District, Andhra Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh. 3. The State of Andhra Pradesh A.P ...Respondents/Respondents 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 order granted in lA No. 1/2023 in WP No. 29565 of 2023 dated 15-11-2023. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI JADA SRAVAN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 5: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.6: SRI N ASWARTHA NARAYANA The Court made the following: Reserved on 07.10.2025 Pronounced on 15.10.2025 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No. 29565 of 2023 ORDER: The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief/s: ...to issue a Writ Order or direction particularly, one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents in issuing the Impugned Revision order vide its RC.No.123/2016/F2 dated 17/06/2023 passed by the 3"^^ respondent in cancelling the D Patta issued to the petitioners in DAR.Dis.No.40/1402 Dated 22.08.1993 and DAR.Dis.No.5/1412 Dated 04.10.2002 for the land in Survey No. 1-3 of extent Ac.5.00 cents and Survey No.6 of extent Ac.4.92 cents in toto admeasuring of Ac.9.92 cents situated at Nadimpalli Village, Somandepalle Mandal, Sri Satyasai District, Andhra Pradesh without following procedure established by the law as illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice and violative of Art 14, 16, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Indian Constitution and consequently set aside the impugned Revision order vide its RC.No.123/2016/F2 Dated 17/06/2023 duly directing the authorities not interfere over the subject land of the petitioner situated in Survey No. 1-3 of extent Ac.5.00 cents and Survey No.6 of extent Ac.4.92 cents in toto admeasuring of Ac.9.92 cents situated at Nadimpalli Village, Somandepalle Mandal, Sri Satyasai District, 2 Andhra Pradesh except due process of law and pass such order or orders The 6*^ unofficial respondent by name Sri N. Shafiullah Khan 2. has fited Revision Petition, before the Joint Collector, Anantapuramu, aggrieved in granting D-form Pattas in favour of the petitioners herein for the land in Survey No. 1-3 to an extent Ac.5.00 cents and in Survey No.6 to an extent of Ac.4.92 cents as it is contrary to law in estate village of Nadimpalli village of Somandepalli Mandal, by the Tahsildar, Somandepalli. The Revisional Authority-cum-Joint Collector and Additional District Magistrate delivered the order dated 17.06.2023, after issuing a notice and following the procedure in the following: i) Nadimpalli village of Somandepalli Mandal is an Inam Estate village, and it was notified as an Inam Estate under Section 1(4) of the Estates Abolition Act. The Government took over the estate on 05.03.1968. Hence, the subject lands have vested with the Government under the provisions of Section 3(b) of the A.P. Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948. ii) In this case, the Tahsikiar of Somandepalli Mandal, without having the requisite jurisdiction, granted D- Pattas in favour of the writ petitioners in this estate village, which is irregular. Therefore, the assignments made by the Tahsildar are contrary to the provisions of the Estates Abolition Act, 1948. It was found that 3 there were procedural irregularities upon adjudication, and the assignments do not withstand legal scrutiny and are thus invalid. Consequently, the mutations and assignments effected without the grant of settlement pattas are also irregular. In the result, the Revisional Authority-cum-Joint Collector and Additional District Magistrate cancelled the D-Pattas issued in DAR.Dis.No.40/1402 dated 22.08.1993 and DAR.Dis.No.5/1412 dated 04.10.2002, pertaining to land in Survey Nos. 1 to 3 (an extent of Ac.5.00 cents) and Survey No.6 (an extent of Ac.4.92 cents). The authority directed the Tahsildar, Somandepalli, to cancel the said D- Pattas and make the necessary changes in the village revenue records. 3. Challenging the order dated 17.06.2023 of the Revisional Authority-cum-Joint Collector and Additional District Magistrate, Puttaparthy, the present Writ Petition has been filed on the ground that the 5*^ respondent-Tahsildar issued pattas to the petitioners’ fathers by considering the petitioners' families as landless poor. St Accordingly, the Tahsildar issued a Pattadar Passbook to the 1 petitioner (Passbook No. 902) and to the 2'^'^ petitioner (Passbook No. 639) respectively. It is also submitted that the petition filed by the 6*'^ respondent for issuance of a settlement patta was rejected by the Tahsildar vide order dated 04.10.2021. The petitioners deny the contention of the 6'^ respondent that he had a valid claim over the land in Pymashi No. 19, which was later raised before the Revisional Authority. The petitioners further contend that the subject land is Government land, recorded as "Gayalu" as per the FLR, and such land is eligible for assignment. Admittedly, the land was assigned to the petitioners in the year 1993. The cancellation of such assignments by the 3^'^ respondent after a lapse of thirty years is not permissible under law. 6. As per BSO 15(18), cancellation of assigned pattas is only permissible on the ground of fraud. In the present case, the authorities granted the pattas and inducted the petitioners into possession. Therefore, the mere existence of a private sale deed claiming title over Government land does not constitute a valid ground for cancellation of D-Form pattas. 4. 5. Relied on the following judgments (1) Mandlappa @ Mandia Giriappa vs. Mandal Revenue Officer^ (2) Dharma Reddy v. Sub- 7. 1996 LawSuit(AP) 506 5 Collector, Bodhan^ for the proposition that the manifestation of the legislature is to save the landless poor persons from the clutches of the rich. And (3) Sunkara Rajyalakshmi and others vs. State of Karnataka^ for the proposition that the period of limitation which has to be taken into account for the purpose of determination whether the title has been perfected by prescription is that which runs against the state government and therefore it would be thirty years and not twelve years. In view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court that the petitioner has perfected title by the date of commencement of the Act by being in continuous possession for over 34 years. Hence, prayed to set aside the impugned order of the 3'"^ respondent-joint Collector and Additional District Magistrate, Puttaparthi. This Court vide proceedings dated 15.11.2023 has granted stay 8. of all further proceedings pursuant to the impugned order dated 17.06.2023 in RC 123/2016/F2. The petitioners have also raised several grounds which are 9. irrelevant for the purpose of adjudicating the present Writ Petition. The 6*" respondent filed its counter affidavit and vacate petition asserting in the affidavit filed in support of vacate petition denying all 10. ^ 1987 (1) ALT FB 124 ^ 1985 (1) SCALE445 6 the contentions, allegations made in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition and it is stated that the land is inam land and inamdars entitled for Ryotwari Patta under the provisions of the Estate Abolition Act and the successor of the 6^^ respondent has been granted inam patta and it is denied that the board standing orders are applicable to the writ petitioners and he relied on the order in W.P. No.8277 of 2021. Hence, prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. are respondent Revisional Authority-cum-Joint Collector and Additional District Magistrate filed its counter affidavit, reinforcing the observations made in the impugned order, and stated that the subject land was notified as an inam estate under Section 1(4) of the Estates Abolition Act. The Government took over the estate on 05.03.1968, and the Tahsildar of Somandepalli, without having any jurisdiction, granted D-Form Pattas in favour of the writ petitioners in the estate village. rd 11. The 3 Heard Sri Jada Sravan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri M. Ashwath Narayana, learned counsel for the 6 respondent and learned Assistant Government Pleader for 3 respondent. 12. rd 7 13. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION The precise case of the petitioners is that action to resume the lands was initiated after a lapse of thirty-three years. Following the assignment, the petitioners made efforts to improve the land by investing hard labour and spending money. Petitioners further contend that as per the Fair Land Records (FLR), the subject land in the writ petition is clearly classified as 'Gayalu', and such land can be assigned to anyone under Board Standing Orders No. 15 and it is settled law that every executive or administrative action of the State must be guided by fairness, reasonableness, and cannot be arbitrary. Flence, the petitioners prayed that the impugned order be set aside. Learned counsel appearing for the 6*'^ respondent would submit 14. that the land is Inam Estate land and the Ryotwari Patta was granted in favour of the successor of the 6*^ respondent and the same cannot be allotted to the Writ Petitioners and denied all the contentions raised by the writ petitioners and he relied on the order in W.P. No.8277 of 2021 and the relevant portion of the same is extracted hereunder: “In view of the principle laid down in the above decisions, after advent of Act 9 of 1977, the revenue authorities are competent to resume the land as per the provisions of the said Act and prior to advent of AP Act 9 of 1977 the 8 revenue authorities can exercise power under BSO '15(18) but Act 9 of 1977 is appHcable only where the land is alienated in contravention of Section 3 of the Act or when there is violation of any other condition of the patta granted in favour of the assignee. But here it is not the question of violation of any terms and conditions of the patta granted in favour of the assignee and it is purely a case of issue of patta inadvertently/oversight. In such a case, the revenue authorities cannot resume the land by invoking any of the provisions of Act 9 of 1977. The only provision available against order of grant of patta/assignment is to exercise suo moto power of revision under BSO 15(18) which enables the District Collector to exercise suo moto power of revision to cancel patta when it was obtained by fraud or misrepresentation or issue of patta by oversight etcetera. Therefore, I am not able to agree with the principles taid down in the above judgments for the reason that the cancellation of the patta is not because of violation of any of the terms and conditions of the patta but on the ground that the patta was issued by oversight. Further, on 24.01.2008 a joint inspection was done by a team of officers consisting the Assistant Director, Survey & Land Records, Chittoor, the Forest Settlement Officer, Chittoor, the Tahsildar, Satyavedu and the Forest Range officer, Sathyavedu. In view of the minutes recorded by the inspecting team, the land is a part of reserve forest. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners that the pattas cannot be cancelled by exercising suo moto power of revision under BSO 15(18) 1^. 9 after lapse of approximately 40 years is without any Hence, the same is hereby rejected, while holding that such power can be exercised at any time in view of law laid down in Munganda Venkataratnam case (5 supra).” The learned Single Judge has held that pattas can be cancelled by exercising suo motu power of revision under BSO 15(18), even after a considerable lapse of time. It was further held that pattas can be cancelled if they were granted due to oversight. r substance. 15. 16. In the present case, the pattas were cancelled by the revisional authority on the ground that they were issued due to oversight in estate village. In pursuant to the principle laid down by the learned Single Judge that the revisional authority can exercise suo motu powers even after a considerable lapse of time, the writ petition does not withstand legal scrutiny. Moreover, no D-patta can be granted to the writ petitioners when a ryotwari patta has already been issued to the successor of the unofficial respondent No.6 under the Estate an Abolition Act. 17. Following the order in W.P. No.8277 of 2021, the said principle is squarely applicable to the present facts of the case. Accordingly, no merit in the contentions raised by the Writ Petitioners in view of the 10 finding arrived by the learned single Judge in W.P. No.8277 of 2021. The Writ Petition sans no merit. 18. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. Sd/- T. SRINIVASA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1. One CC to Sri JADA SRAVAN KUMAR, Advocate [OPUC] 2. Two CCS to GP for REVENUE, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUTl 3. One CC to Sri N ASWARTHA NARAYANA, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies vna HIGH COURT DATED:15/10/2025 ORDER WP NO. 29565 OF 2023 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS