APHC010075232023 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: 4069/2023 Between: 1. PANDETI VARA LAKSHMI, W/O. LATE P. VENKATARAMARAJU , HINDU, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, R/O. D.NO. 20-3-126/B2, P.V.R.ARKDAY, 3RD FLOOR, TIRUMALA BYPASS ROAD, LEELA MAHAL JUNCTION, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY. ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TIRUPATI DISTRICT AT TIRUPATI. ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. THE THASILDAR, TIRUPATI URBAN MANDALAM, TIRUPATI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 4. THE DIRECTOR SURVEY AND LAND RECORDS DEPARTMENT THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, SRI SAI RESIDENCY, 7TH LANE, OPP. NARAYANA SCHOOL, NAGARJUNA NAGAR, CURRENCY NAGAR, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT 5. THE TIRUPATI URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY TUDA REP BY ITS VICE CHAIRMAN, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT RR 4 AND 5 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER THE COURT ORDER DATED 12.04.2023 VIDE ORDER PASSED IN IA 2 OF 2023 ...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 or order or orders or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus and to declare the action of the 3rd respondent reject the pattaa sub-division, to No. the petitioner's landed property to an extent of Ac. 0.27 1/2 cents in Sy. No. 165/2, situated at No. 32, Konkachennayagutta Village accounts, No.9 Akarampalli Group, Tirupati Urban Mandal, Chittoor District now Tirupati District is illegal, arbitrary, unjust, irrational, discremination, derliction of duties and violation of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India, violation of The Andhra Pradesh Survey and Boundaries Act,1923, violation of principles of Natural Justice and 2 violation of Apex Court as well as this Hon'ble Court orders and consequently set aside the 3rd Respondent impugned endorsement dated. 25.12.2022 and direct the 3rd Respondent and its authorities to do pattaa sub-division to the petitioner's landed property as per The Andhra Pradesh Survey and Boundaries Act,1923 and to pass 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 pleased to direct the 3rd respondent and its authority to do pattaa sub-division to the petitioner's landed property to an extent of Ac. 0.27 '/2 cents in Sy. No. 165/2, situated at No. 32, Konkachennayagutta Village accounts, No.9 Akarampalli Group, Tirupati Urban Mandal, Chittoor District now Tirupati District, pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass 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 pleased to permit the Petitioner to Implead Proposed Respondents No.4 and 5 in the above Writ Petition No. 4069 of 2023 and as well as in Interlocutory Applications, pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. CH VENKAT RAMAN Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.4069 of 2023 ORDER:- The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “…to issue a writ or order or orders or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus and to declare the action of the 3rd respondent reject the pattaa sub-division, to the petitioner's landed property to an extent of Ac.0.27 ½ cents in Sy.No.165/2, situated at No.32, Konkachennayagutta Village accounts, No.9 Akarampalli Group, Tirupati Urban Mandal, Chittoor District now Tirupati District is illegal, arbitrary, unjust, irrational, discremination, derliction of duties and violation of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India, violation of The Andhra Pradesh Survey and Boundaries Act,1923, violation of principles of Natural Justice and violation of Apex Court as well as this Hon'ble Court orders and consequently set aside the 3rd Respondent impugned endorsement dated. 25.12.2022 and direct the 3rd Respondent and its authorities to do pattaa sub-division to the petitioner's landed property as per The Andhra Pradesh Survey and Boundaries Act,1923 and to pass such other orders…” 2. It is the pleading in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that the petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of the land admeasuring Ac.0.27 ½ cents in Sy.No.165/2, situated at No.32, Konkachennayagutta Village accounts, No.9 Akarampalli Group, Tirupati Urban Mandal, Chittoor District now Tirupati District. Petitioner has purchased the said land through registered sale deed vide Document No.1572/2004 dated 03.03.2004. On the southern side of the subject property, the Indian railways authorities have constructed a compound wall within their land. Be it as it may, petitioner has submitted an application seeking sub-division of the subject property. The said application was rejected on 25.12.2022, on the ground that a 4 master plan road carried through the land and proposed future development as outlined, as per BT TUDA records. Assailing the same, present writ petition is filed. 3. On perusal of the written instructions dated 15.02.2023, it indicates three versions (i) as per village accounts of Konka Chennaiahgunta village, the land in Sy.No.165/2 in an extent of Ac.4.62 cents is classified as patta wet land and stands registered in the name of one Sri K.Govinda Reddy vide patta No.43, (ii) the petitioner was not in possession and enjoyment of the subject land as reported by the Mandal Surveyor, Tirupathi and (iii) the boundaries of the land shown by the petitioner is different from the boundaries mentioned in the document. 4. This Court held, when there are two different versions and the proceedings show a casual and cavalier attitude on the part of the authority, the High Court can always strike down the order of the authority. After going through the impugned order, this Court finds that the facts disclosed in the impugned order differ from the written instructions placed before the Court. Therefore, giving rise to two different versions of the foundational facts on which the relief is sought to be based, then it will be necessary for the Court to direct the authority to give an opportunity of hearing so that upon appreciation thereof the Court can ascertain the correct facts, whereupon the Court can pass appropriate orders. 5 5. On perusal of the material available on record, it appears that the petitioner has produced the registered sale deed to establish his title over the subject property. It is further evident that the contents of the rejection order and the written instructions are inconsistent with each other. 6. Therefore, the present Writ Petition is disposed of, remanding the matter to the authority to re-consider the petitioner’s request for sub-division of the subject property, in accordance with law, within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 05.11.2025 KBN