APHC010365832017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3206] FRIDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 6723/2017 Between: 1. THIKKAII PEDDA VENKATESWARLU, S/OTHIKKALI PEDDA VENKATA SWAMY AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O. KANNAMADAKALA VILLAGE, ORVAKAL MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 2. THIKKALI VADDE CHINNA VENKATESWARLU, S/OTHIKKALI PEDDA VENKATA SWAMY R/O. KANNAMADAKALA VILLAGE, ORVAKAL MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL, SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, HYDERABAD. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER KURNOOL KURNOOL DISTRICT, 3. THE TAHSILDAR ORVAKAL MANDAL KURNOOL DISTRICT, - 4. CHINNA VENKATA SWAMY, S/O VADDE ANKALANNA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O KANNAMADAKALA VILLAGE ORVAKAL MANDAL, KURNOOL 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 2 pleased to Issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent dt.29-12-2016 bearing Rc.No. 54/2015, cancelling the pattadar pass books and title deed issued in favour of the petitioners in respect of the land in Sy.No. 210 admeasuring ac. 0.75 cents each total Ac. 1.50 cents situated at Kannamadakala village of Orvakal Mandal, Kunool District, basing on the appeal filed by the 4th respondent, without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard during the pendency of the suit O.S.No. 308 of 2014 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool, as being illegal, arbitrary and unilateral and consequently set aside the same, and to grant IA NO: 1 OF 2017(WPMP 8263 OF 2017 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 suspend the operation of the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent dt. 29-12-2016 passed in Rc. 29-12-2016 passed in Rc. No. 54/2015, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition, and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2018 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 on 28.2.2017 in WPMP No.8263 of 2017 in WP No.6723 of 2017 IA NO: 2 OF 2018 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 28.02.2017 in WPMP.no. 8262/2017 in WP.no. 6723/2017 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. J JANAKIRAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE (AP) 2. KUNTAMUKKALA SAI SREE SANJAY 3. K RATHANGA PANI REDDY 3 The Court made the following ORDER: Heard Sri J.Janaki Rami Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsels for the respondents. 2. The petitioners herein claim ownership over two pieces of Ac.0-75 cents of land aggregating to Ac.1-50 cents in Sy.No.210 of Kannamadakala Village of Orvakal mandal, Kurnool District on the basis of registered Deed of Sale bearing document No.308/98, dated 11.05.1998. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners being aggrieved by the attempts of the 4th respondent in seeking to encroach upon the land, had filed O.S.No.308 of 2014 before the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool for perpetual injunction restraining the 4th respondent from interfering with possession of the petitioners over the said land. This suit came to be dismissed for default and an application for restoration is said to be pending, before the trial Court. 4. The 4th respondent, being aggrieved by the inclusion of the names of the petitioners, in the revenue records, in relation to this land, filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent – Revenue Divisional Officer, for deletion of names of the petitioners. This appeal was allowed by the 2nd respondent, on 29.12.2016, in Rc.C.54/2015, cancelling the pattadar pass book and title deed issued to the petitioners. Aggrieved by the said order, dated 29.12.2016, the petitioners have approached this Court by way of the present writ petition. 4 5. The case of the petitioners is that the order has been passed, without proper opportunity of hearing being given to them and also on the ground that the 2nd respondent-RDO, despite being aware of the pendency of O.S.No.308 of 2014, had chosen to ignore the said pendency and had passed the aforesaid order which is not in accordance with law. 6. The 4th respondent contends that the land purchased by the petitioners, from the father of the 4th respondent, is in Sy.No.211 of the Village and not Sy.No.210 of the Village, as claimed by the petitioners. The 4th respondent would contend that the 2nd respondent-RDO, taking into account this fact, had set aside the pattadar pass book and title deed. 7. As there are serious disputes of fact as to the location of the land and whether the land in Sy.No.210 had been conveyed to the petitioners or whether the land, conveyed to the petitioners, is situated in Sy.No.211 would require proper appreciation of the facts after necessary material had been placed before the appropriate Court. 8. In view of the pendency of O.S.No.308 of 2014 before the trial Court, and in view of the pendency of restoration application, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition with the following directions: i) The trial Court shall take up the restoration application filed by the petitioners, at the earliest and dispose of the same within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of this order; ii) In the event of the trial Court allowing the said application and taking the suit back on file, the trial Court shall endeavour to 5 dispose of the said suit within a further period of six (6) months from the date of restoration; iii) Though question of title is not normally gone into by Court in a suit for permanent injunction, such an issue may have to be gone into in the peculiar facts of the case; iv) It would be open to the trial Court to go into such question, and the discussion or observations made in this order shall not control or hinder the trial Court in this regard; v) The impugned order of the 2nd respondent dated 29.12.2016 shall abide by the result of the suit and any subsequent appeal that may be filed against the judgment and decree that would be passed by the trial Court; vi) In the event of the trial Court refusing to restore the suit, it would be open to the petitioner to approach the revisional authority under Section 9 of ROR Act. Any such application, shall be considered by the revisional authority without reference to the delay in filing of such revision petition against the impugned order dated 29.12.2016. 9. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J Date: 31.10.2025 KA/KSS 6 50 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 6723/2017 Date: 31.10.2025 KA/KSS