APHC010002642024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3208] FRIDAY,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 467/2024 Between: 1. KONDANNAGARI MANJUNATH REDDY, S/O D.CHINNAPPA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, GUMMAIHGARI PALLI, GORANTLA VILLIGE AND MANDAL. SRI SATHYA SAI DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SRI SATHYA SAI DISTRICT, PUTTAPARTHI, ERSTWHILE ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, REVENUE DIVISION, PUTTAPARTHI, SRI SATHYA SAI DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, GORANTLA MANDAL, GORANTLA, SRI SATHYA SAI DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE ANANTHAPURAMU 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 topleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS, declaring the action of the 4th respondent by marking with Red Colour on the copies of Adangal as well as 1-B pertaining to the agricultural lands of the Petitioner to an extent of Ac. 1.18 cents situated in Sy. No.325 and for including an extent of Ac.0.77cents in Sy. No.324-2 in disputed survey numbers of Mallapalli Village, Gorantla Mandal, Sri Sathya Sai District, Erstwhile Ananthapuramu District and thereby creating a cloud on his property, without issuing any notice, without passing any order and without having any power or authority is arbitrary, violative of Articles 14 and 300-A of Constitution of India and accordingly set aside in so far as marking with Red Colour on the copies of Adangal as well as 1-B of the lands belongs to the Petitioner to an extent of Ac. 1.18 cents situated in Sy. No.325 and for including an extent of Ac.0.77cents in Sy. No.324-2 in disputed survey numbers of Mallapalli Village, Gorantla Mandal, Sri Sathya Sai District, erstwhile Ananthapuramu District and consequently direct the 4th respondent to issue Digitally signed copies of Adangal and I-B pertaining to the lands of the Petitioner to an extent Ac. 1.18 cents situated in Sy. No.325 and for including an extent of Ac.0.77cents in Sy. No.324-2 of Mallapalli Village Gorantla Mandal, Sri Sathya Sai District, erstwhile Ananthapuramu District by deleting the Red Colour marking and to direct the 4th respondent to remove an extent of Ac.0.77cents in Sy. No.324-2 of Mallapalli Village, Gorantla Mandal, Sri Sathya Sai District, erstwhile Ananthapuramu District from disputed survey numbers 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 pleased to suspend the action of the 4th respondent in so far as marking with Red Colour on the copies of Adangal as well as in 1-B pertaining to the lands of the Petitioner to an extent of Ac. 1.18 cents in Sy. No.325 and to remove an extent of Ac.0.77cents in Sy. No.324-2, from disputed survey numbers, of Mallapalli Village, Gorantla Mandal, Sri Sathya Sai District, erstwhile Ananthapuramu District, pending disposal of the main Writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. S KRISHNA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE (AP) The Court made the following: 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents. 2. The present Writ Petition is filed aggrieved by the action of the 4th respondent by marking with Red Colour on the copies of Adangal as well as 1- B pertaining to the agricultural lands of the Petitioner to an extent of Ac. 1.18 cents situated in Sy. No.325 and by including in dispute survey numbers of the agricultural lands of the Petitioner to an extent of Ac.0.77 cents situated in Sy. No.324-2 of Mallapalli Village, Gorantla Mandal, Sri Sathya Sai District, Erstwhile Ananthapuramu District without issuing any prior notice, without following due process of law. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the lands admeasuring Ac. 1.18 cents in Sy. No. 325 and Ac. 0.77 cents in Sy. No. 324- 2 of Mallapalli Village originally belonged to the petitioner’s ancestors and subsequently fell to the share of the petitioner’s father in a family partition. Thereafter, the petitioner and his father jointly enjoyed the said properties as members of the undivided family, and under a registered partition deed dated 19.06.2013, the subject lands fell to the exclusive share of the petitioner. The petitioner has since been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the same, and the revenue records, including the Pattadar Passbooks, were accordingly updated in his name. 4. The learned counsel further submits that the 4th respondent updated the revenue records and uploaded the petitioner’s name in the Adangal and 1-B. While matters stood thus, one Dandu Sudhakar Reddy @ Kondannagari Sudhakar Reddy filed O.S. No. 168 of 2021 before the Junior Civil Judge, Penukonda, falsely claiming half share in the property, though he has no right, title, or possession over it. It is contended that during the pendency of the said suit, the 4th respondent, without issuing any notice or conducting any enquiry, arbitrarily marked the petitioner’s land in Sy. No. 325 in red colour in the Adangal and 1-B, and further included Ac. 0.77 cents in Sy. No. 324-2 in the dispute survey numbers and uploaded the same in the Webland portal, allegedly in collusion with the said individual. It is submitted that the mere pendency of a civil suit does not empower the 4th respondent to mark the property in red or classify it as disputed. The petitioner submitted representations dated 04.03.2023, 10.04.2023, and 08.05.2023 to respondents 2 to 4 seeking removal of the red marking and deletion of the disputed classification. Though the said representations were duly received, no action has been taken, thereby causing continued prejudice to the petitioner. He further reiterates that the mere pendency of a civil suit does not authorize or empower the 4th respondent to keep the property under red marking or classify it as disputed, and that such action is contrary to the instructions issued in CCLA’s Circular Ref. No. LR-II/ROR-II/144/2021 dated 19.03.2024. 5. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader for the respondents, on instructions, submits that though no orders have been passed either by the Appellate or Revisional authorities, the subject property has been placed under the disputed survey numbers only on the basis of information relating to O.S. No. 168 of 2021. 6. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners are not parties to the said suit. 7. Considering the submissions of both learned counsel and upon perusal of the material available on record, and in view of the observations contained in CCLA’s Circular Ref. No. LR-II/ROR-II/144/2021 dated 19.03.2024, the writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondent authorities, more particularly the 4th respondent–Tahsildar, to delete the subject property from the disputed survey numbers and from Red Marking, and not to classify the same as disputed, within a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE D. RAMESH 28.11.2025 klk 408 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION No.467 of 2024 28.11.2025 kkllkk