APHC010644252023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.33101 of 2023 Between: 1. KOTTAPALLI KRISHNA KUMARI, W/O. KANUMURTHY VENKATARAMANA RAJU, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.50-97-13, BACK SIDE OF SFS SCHOOL, T.P.T COLONY SEETAMMADHARA, VISHAKHAPATNAM. 2. KALADINDI GAYATHRI,, W/O. ARAVINDA VARMA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.50-97-13, BACK SIDE OF SFS SCHOOL, T.P.T COLONY SEETAMMADHARA, VISHAKHAPATNAM R/O. 160 ALOMINA PASS, TRUMBULL, CT06611, USA. 3. RAI APPALANARASAMMA,, W/O. SANGMESWAR RAO, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/O.SEEDHI VILLAGE, PATHAPTNAM MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 4. RAI SANGAMESAR RAO,, S/O.LATELATCHAYYA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/O.SEEDHI VILLAGE, PATHAPTNAM MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 5. MENDA HYMAVATHI,, W/O.M.SIMHACHALAM, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/O.SEEDHI VILLAGE, PATHAPTNAM MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 6. MENDA SIMHACHALAM,, S/O.LATE NARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/O.SEEDHI VILLAGE, PATHAPTNAM MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT 7. PEESA ADINARAYANA, , S/O.LATE CHINANAVADU, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/O.SEEDHI VILLAGE, PATHAPTNAM MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 8. IPPILI VIJAYA,, W/O. NARAYANA RAO, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/O.SEEDHI VILLAGE, PATHAPTNAM MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) 2 AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, AT VELAGAPUDI,AMARAVATHI, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SRIKAKULAM, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. THE JOINT COLLECTOR, SRIKAKULAM, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 4. THE SUB COLLECTOR, TEKKALI, SRIKAKULAM, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 5. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, TEKKALI, SRIKAKULAM, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 6. THE TAHSILDAR, SRIKAKULAM, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 7. RUDRA PRATAP DEV, S/O. SRI SARVAGNAYAJAGANATHAGAJAPATHI NARAYANA DEV, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/O. GAJAPATHI PALACE, PARLAKHEMUNDHI TOWN, GAJAPATHI DISTRICT, ODISHA STATE, PRESENTLY R/O.D.NO.7, MANIKESWARI ROAD, KILPAUK, CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU. 8. NAVNITA DEVI, S/O. SRI SARVAGNAYAJAGANATHAGAJAPATHI NARAYANA DEV, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O. GAJAPATHI PALACE, PARLAKHEMUNDHI TOWN, GAJAPATHI DISTRICT, ODISHA STATE, PRESENTLY R/O.D.NO.7, MANIKESWARI ROAD, KILPAUK, CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU. 9. RENTIKOTA MOHANA RAO, S/O. RAGHAVA, AGED NOT KNOWN, OCC PARTNER IN SRI RAGHAVA CONSTRUCTIONS, R/O.D.NO.5-5-35/332/109, A.V.B.PURAM, KUKATPALLY, HYDERABAD, (NOT NECESSARY) ...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 a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus in questioning the proceedings of the 3rd respondent vide Proceedings No.Rc.No. 1748/2022/D8 dated 17.08.2023 against the orders passed by the 5th respondent in his proceedings Rc.No.999/2022 B dated 14.10.2022 in Revision preferred by 7th and 8threspondents herein U/s. 9 of Andhra Pradesh Rights in 3 Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 for cancellation of Revenue Records, PPB/TD granted in favour of petitioners in respect of land admeasuring an extent of Ac. 19.71 cents covering Sy.No.4and an extent of Ac. 13.25 cents covered in Sy.No.8 of Ranghadughati Village, Meliaputti Mandal, Srikakulam District as illegal and arbitrary and violative of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 and consequently set-aside the proceedings of the 3rd respondent vide Rc.No.l748/2022/D8 dated 17.08.2023. Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. P NARAHARI BABU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. TADDI NAGESWARA RAO 3. V V SATISH The Court made the following: 4 ORDER: The present Writ Petition is filed impugning the order dated 17.08.2023 of the 3rd respondent – Joint Collector. The Joint Collector has allowed the revision filed by the respondent Nos.7 and 8 herein under Sections 9 and 10 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971, and annulled the Pattadar Passbook and assigned Khata number 18 & 23 of Ranghadughati Village of Meliyaputti Manaal which had been issued in favour of the writ petitioners. 2. Brief narration of the facts: The respondent Nos.7 and 8 herein approached the 5th respondent – Revenue Divisional Officer for cancellation of all the entries in revenue records such as ROR, 1B, Adangal Mutations that were issued in favour of the writ petitioners, on the ground that the land covered to an extent of Ac.19.71 cents in survey number 4 and the land covered to an extent of Ac.13.25 cents in survey number 8 is zeroyathi land which is the ancestral property belongs to Maharaja of Parlakhumandi and they are the absentee land lords and residing at Chennai State, since long time and it is alleged that the writ petitioners have illicitly mutated their names for the aforementioned lands and assert that the writ petitioners possess no title or rights over the property. 3. The 5th respondent – Revenue Divisional Officer, vide proceeding in Rc.No.999/2022 B dated 14.10.2022, has directed the respondent Nos.7 and 8 to pursue their legal rights concerning the disputed land in 5 a Court of law and to file a civil suit for declaration and recovery of possession, and the status of the zeroyathi land should be maintained according to the records. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the 5th respondent – Revenue Divisional Officer in Rc.No.999/2022 B dated 14.10.2022, the respondent Nos.7 and 8 field revision under Sections 9 and 10 of the A.P.Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971, before the 3rd respondent – Joint Collector. The 3rd respondent has delivered the impugned order dated 17.08.2023 annulling the Pattadar Passbook and cancelled the assigned Khata number 18 & 23 of Ranghadughati Village of Meliyaputti Mandal issued in favour of the writ petitioners assigning the reasons that the petitioners herein failed to produce their legitimate rights/documents in support of their claim with regard to acquisition of rights for the scheduled lands bearing survey number 4 and 8, leaving it open for the interested parties to approach appropriate forum for proving their title over the lands held by them respectively. 5. The Revenue Divisional Officer disposed of the appeal filed by respondent Nos.7 and 8 herein, directing the appellants/unofficial respondents herein to pursue their legal rights over the said disputed land in a Court of law by filing a civil suit for declaration and recovery of possession. However, the unofficial respondents have filed O.S.No.9 of 2025 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tekkali, for declaration of title and cancellation of the sale deeds executed by the petitioners herein in favour of third parties. 6 6. On perusal of the orders of both the Revenue Divisional Officer and the Joint Collector, both the authorities have directed the parties to approach the Civil Court to agitate or pursue their rights. Accordingly, respondent Nos.7 and 8 have filed the suit for declaration of title and for cancellation of title deeds. Therefore, nothing survives for adjudication in the present Writ Petition. 7. At this juncture, learned counsel for the writ petitioners would submit that this Court had granted "status quo" on 23.12.2023 to be continued till disposal of the suit filed by the respondent Nos.7 and 8 for declaration of title and recovery of possession, and the counsel for the petitioners stated they will contest the suit filed by the respondent Nos.7 and 8. The learned counsel for the respondent Nos.7 and 8 has not opposed significantly or fervently, and fairly agreed to the request made by the counsel for the petitioners. 8. Learned counsel representing respondent No.9 stated that the petitioners and the vendors of respondents Nos.7 and 8 have separately sold the same property, totalling Ac.11.71 cents in Sy.No.4. It is not only disputed, furthermore, the same was acknowledged by the learned counsel for respondents Nos.7 and 8, as well as the learned counsel for the writ petitioners. 9. As the learned counsel for both the unofficial respondent Nos.7 and 8 and the writ petitioners herein have admitted that they have sold the property of an extent of Acs.11-71 cents in Sy.No.4, the said status quo order was compelled to the other extent. 7 10. This Court only suggests the respondent No.9 to implead in the above said suit filed by the unofficial respondent Nos.7 and 8 and it is left open for the respondent No.9 either to implead as a party respondent in the above referred suit. 11. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of, granting liberty to the respective parties to contest the suit in O.S.No.9 of 2025 pending on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tekkali. The interim order dated 23.12.2023 is made absolute and continue till disposal of the suit, insofar as it excludes an extent of Ac.11.71 cents in R.S.No.4, the said extent having been admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner and for respondent Nos.7 and 8 to have been sold to respondent No.9. 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: 13.11.2025 siva 8 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.33101 of 2023 Date: 13.11.2025 siva