APHC010214412024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] MONDAY,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 10783/2024 Between: 1. CHAITANYA MAHILA RYTHU COOLIE SAMKSHEMA SANGHAM,, REGD. SOCIETY NO 158/2004, 2-28-63, BHIMARAJU GUTTA, REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT, NALLAMOTHU KOTESWARI, IBRAHIMPATNAM, VIJAYWADA. ...PETITIONER AND 1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRI. SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, NTR DISTRICT. 3. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT. 4. TAHSILDAR, IBRAHIMPATNAM, NTR DISTRICT. 5. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, KRISHNA CENTRAL DIVISION, NTR DISTRICT. 6. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, IBRAHIMPATNAM POLICE STATION VIJAYAWADA. 7. SC ST AND BC MINORITY DEVELOPMENT SEVA SANGHAM, REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT, SANDIPAMU RAVI KUMAR S/O 2 GOPAIAH AGED 53 YEARS, R/O SAKTHI NAGAR, IBRAHIMPATNAM VILLAGE AND MANDAL, NTR 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 appropriate writ, Order or direction, particularly a Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings of the 2nd respondent in Ref.No.Rc.L4/248/2023 dated 02.05.2023 thereby directing 4th respondent herein to handover possession of the land in survey Nos.160/3 admeasuring Ac. 9.82cents and 161 admeasuring Ac. 8.06 cents of Ibrahimpatnam Village and Mandal, NTR District to the 7th respondent and the petitioner members society in equitable share not exceeding Ac.2.50 cents to each member, as without jurisdiction and contrary to the order in WP No 1360 of 2023 dated 22.02.2023, as illegal, irregular and arbitrary, violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India, and consequently suspend the proceedings of the 2nd respondent in RC.L4/248/2023 dated 02.05.2023 and to pass 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 to suspend the proceedings of the 2nd respondent in RC.L4/248/2023 dated 02.05.2023 thereby directing 4th respondent herein to handover possession of the land in survey Nos; 160/3 admeasuring Ac. 9.82cents and 161 admeasuring Ac. 9.82cents and 161 admeasuring Ac. 8.06 cents of Ibrahimpatnam Village and Mandal, NTR District to the 7th respondent and the petitioner members society in equitable share not exceeding Ac.2.50 cents to each member pending disposal of the above writ petition and to 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 to vacate the Interim Order, dated 10.07.2023 passed in W.P.No.10783 of 2024 Counsel for the Petitioner: 3 1. KODATI RAMYA KRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME 2. GP FOR REVENUE 3. S DILIP JAYA RAM The Court made the following: ORDER: Impugning the proceedings of the 2nd respondent in Ref.No.Rc.L4/248/2023 dated 02.05.2023 thereby directing the 4th respondent to handover the possession of the land to an extent of Ac.9.82 cents in Sy.No.160/3 and Ac.8.06 cents in Sy.No.161 of Ibrahimpatnam Village and Mandal, NTR District, to the 7th respondent and the petitioner society members in equitable share not exceeding Ac.2.50 cents to each member, without jurisdiction and contrary to the order passed in W.P.No.1360 of 2023 dated 22.02.2023, the present writ petition is filed. 2. Heard Sri M.Solmon Raju, learned counsel representing Ms.Kodati Ramya Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Chandra Sekhar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and Sri S.Dilip Jaya Ram, learned counsel for the 7th respondent. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents of the affidavit submitted that the petitioner society is the absolute enjoyer and possessor of the subject land in Ibrahimpatnam Revenue Village and 4 Mandal, NTR District. While so, the land to an extent of Ac.18.00 cents in Sy.No.335 was allotted on lease in the year 2008-2009 to 2009-2010 excluding the land already leased to the 7th respondent-Society. He further submitted that no piece of land has been allotted in favour of the 7th respondent in Sy.Nos.160/3 & 161 at any point of time. For the first time, the authority concerned has given lease of the subject land to the petitioner society. Now, part of the subject land was also given lease to the 7th respondent under the orders impugned and a direction has been given under the impugned proceedings to the Tahsildar, to handover the possession to the 7th respondent as well as in equitable share not exceeding Ac.2.50 cents acres to each member and submit the compliance report. In the background of the case, if the said land has been allotted to the members of the 7th respondent-society also, the rights of the petitioners would be affected, as such, prayed to pass appropriate orders setting aside the rights conferred on the 7th respondent by virtue of the impugned proceedings to the extent of lands situated in Sy.No.160/3 & 161. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the 7th respondent on counter submitted that by virtue of the rules in vogue, the respondent authority concerned taking into consideration the earlier lease rights conferred on the petitioners society as well as the 7th respondent society and also by taking into consideration the entire lands in Sy.Nos.160/3 5 and 161 has issued the impugned proceedings. The petitioner cannot claim any exclusive legal rights on these lands in Sy.Nos.160/3 and 161. In view of the same, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed for being meritless. In fact, the lease is already granted and entered upon by the 7th respondent and the lease land has also been received from the respective members. 5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue submitted that there is neither illegality nor procedural irregularity in passing the impugned proceedings. No legal ground has been raised by the petitioner warranting interference of this Court. Further, the petitioner cannot have any legal right in the land in Sy.No.160/3 & 161. The writ petition is meritless and prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 6. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that some of the members of the 7th respondent society are salaried employees, giving benefits to such members and denying the rights to the petitioners’ society, who are poor and doing coolie works, and on the said ground itself the 7th respondent rights have to be rejected and the lease, if any, in their favour should be cancelled. Accordingly, prayed to pass appropriate orders. 7. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 6 8. As could be culled out from the facts and circumstances of the case, it is not in dispute that the members of the petitioners’ society as well as the 7th respondent society have some lease hold rights right from the year 2000 onwards. The petitioner society got lease of the land totaling to an extent of Ac.17.88 cents situated in Sy.No.160/3 & 161 of Ibrahimpatnam Village and Mandal, NTR District, till 2010 whereas the 7th respondent Society got lease hold rights to the land to an extent of Ac.15.00 cents situated in Sy.No.335 till 2010. The 7th respondent has also came to be filed a writ petition vide W.P.No.24730 of 2023 questioning the action of the Tahsildar of the Ibrahimpatnam Village & Mandal, NTR District, in not handing over the transferred possession of allotted leased land under the proceedings impugned in the present writ petition. This Court under its order dated 28.02.2024 disposed of the said writ petition directing the authorities to handover the possession of the subject leased land to the 7th respondent by fixing eight weeks time. Despite the said direction given by this Court, as the authorities have not complied the same, a contempt case has been filed vide C.C.No.3749 of 2024. 9. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondents, the petitioner has no exclusive legal rights in asking to lease the entire land in Sy.No.160/3 &161. Since 2010, admittedly, there is no lease in their favour. Now, the authorities have leased the land in R.S.No.335, 7 160/3 and 161 to both the Societies and allotted the same as per the recommendations made by the Joint Collector. In the absence of any legal right, the petitioners society cannot find fault with the orders impugned. 10. The other ground that has been strongly urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the members of the 7th respondent are employed gainfully and no benefit can be granted to them by giving the lease. The same cannot be adjudicated in the present writ petition. If at all, the members of the 7th respondent society are gainfully employed and any land is being allotted to them, the said cause of action in that regard is totally different where the petitioner has to question the same before appropriate forum in that regard. 11. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the reasons stated supra, when there is no exclusive legal right conferred on the petitioner society, the question of asking the entire land in Sy.Nos.160/3 & 161 on lease does not arise. The writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. 12. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, the respondents are not precluded to take steps in view of the impugned proceedings dated 02.05.2023 and the authorities have to give possession to the parties i.e., to the petitioner and the 7th respondent 8 accordingly. It is needless to observe as per the share mentioned in the impugned proceedings, the lease has to be allotted to the petitioner as well as the 7th respondent. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date: 22nd December, 2025 RKS