IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) V. WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE :r> i “v. •■s' ' J A- ’WSp' *s. PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 4349 OF 2022 Between: C. Pattabhi Naidu, S/o. Late, Gurrappa Naidu, Hindu, Aged about 52 years, Occ: Agriculturalist, Residing at Pasumanda village, Naraharipeta post Gudipala Mandal Chittoor District. 1 ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. The District Collector, Chittoor District, Chittoor. 3. The Tahsildar, Gudipala mandal, Chittoor District. 4. T. Vinayakam, S/o. Thangaraj, aged about 47 years, Pasumandce colony, vasantha puram post, Gudipala Mandal, Chittoor District. 5. Krishnamurthy, S/o. Late Dhanapal, aged about 50 years, Pasumandce colony, vasantha puram post, Gudipala Mandal, Chittoor District. 6. M Magi, S/o. Late Masilamani, aged about 49 years, Pasumandce colony, vasantha puram post, Gudipala Mandal, Chittoor District. 7. Anand, S/o. Late Chinnathumbi, aged about 59 years, Pasumandce colony, vasantha puram post, Gudipala Mandal, Chittoor District. ...RESPONDENTS 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 an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus may be pleased to declaring the action of the respondents 2 and 3 in threating to dispose the petitioner from Peaceful Possession and enjoyment of the property to an extent of Ac. 2.50 cents in Sy. No. 44/6 of Pasumanda Village, Gudipala Mandal, Chittoor the instance of Respondents 4 to 7 as illegal arbitrary and his District at unconstitutional and violation of principles of natural justice and consequentially direct the respondents not to dispose the petitioner from the subject land without following new procedure under law. lA NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may pleased d to direct the respondents 2 and 3 not to dispossess the petitioner from our agricultural land to an extent of Ac. 2.50 cents in Sy. No. Pasumanda Village, Gudipala Mandal, Chittoor District at the be 44/6 of instance of Respondents 4 to 7, till the disposal of the Writ Petition. lA 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 extend the interim orders passed in WP no. 4349 of 2022 dt. 23-02-2022. lA 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 extend the interim orders granted in W.P. No. 4349 of 2022 dated 23.02.2022 until further orders. lA NO: 3 OF 2024 Between: The Tahsildar, Gudipala mandal, Chittoor District. ...PETITIONER AND 1. C. Pattabhi Naidu, S/o. Late, Gurrappa Naidu, Hindu, Aged about 52 years Naraharipeta post, Gudipala Mandal Chittoor District. Agriculturalist, Residing at Pasumanda village. Occ; ...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER 2. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 3. The District Collector, Chittoor District, Chittoor. 4. T. Vinayakam, S/o. Thangaraj, aged about 47 years, Pasumandce colony, vasantha puram post, Gudipala Mandal, Chittoor District. 5. Krishnamurthy, S/o. Late Dhanapal, aged about 50 years, Pasumandce colony, vasantha puram post, Gudipala Mandal, Chittoor District. 6. M Magi, S/o. Late Masilamani, aged about 49 years, Pasumandce colony, vasantha puram post, Gudipala Mandal, Chittoor District. 7. Anand, S/o. Late Chinnathumbi, aged about 59 years, Pasumandce colony, vasantha puram post, Gudipala Mandal, Chittoor District. ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS (R2 to R7 are not necessary parties in this petition) 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 23.02.2022 in WP.No.4349 of 2022 and to dismiss the Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SURESH KUMAR REDDY KALAVA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 : SRI KRISHNA PRANEETH ASST.GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 to 7 : SRI G. JAGADEESWAR The Court made the following: ORDER 1 APHC010065802022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] Sfe WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 4349/2022 Between: C. Pattabhi Naidu ...PETITIONER AND The State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.SURESH KUMAR REDDY KALAVA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR REVENUE 2.G JAGADEESWAR The Court made the following order: The short grievance of the petitioner is that, without following the due process of law, respondent Nos.2 and 3 are threatening to dispossess him from his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property to an extent of Ac.2.50 cents in survey No.44/6 of Pasumanda village, Gudipala Mandal, Chittoor District. 2 2. Heard Sri Suresh Kumar Reddy Kalava, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Krishna Praneeth, learned Assistant Government Pleader for official respondents and Sri G.Jagadeeswar, learned counsel for the unofficial respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in elaboration to what has been stated in the writ affidavit contended that respondent No.3 has issued D-form patta in respect of the subject land and since the date of issuance of patta, he has been in possession and enjoyment of the property. He further submitted that when the unofficial respondents were interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the property, the petitioner constrained to file O.S.No.1067 of 2021 on the file of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa seeking permanent injunction and the Court below by order dated 18.11.2021 granted temporary injunction pending suit. He further submitted that without following the due process of law, respondent Nos.4 to 7 instigated the official respondents under the guise of providing house site patta to the poor people, threatened to dispossess the petitioner from the subject property. As such, the present Writ Petition is filed and this Court vide order dated 23.02.2022 granted status quo with regard to subject property. Hence, prayed to pass orders protecting the interest of the petitioner. 4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader, while reiterating the contents of the counter affidavit of the Tahsildar, Gudipala Mandal contended that there was no sub-division of survey No.44/6 to an extent of Ac.2.50 cents. The land to an extent of Ac.449.00 cents in survey 3 P No.44/1 was classified as ‘Adavi’ and the survey No.44/1 is a block, hence there is no chance of deriving sub-division of Sy.No.44/6 from Sy.No.44/1. So the sub-division mentioned by the petitioner is also fake one. The said survey No.44/6 is not entered in the revenue records because there is no sub division. He further submitted that the DKT patta produced by the petitioner said to be granted in his favour is not found in the office records, hence, the same is not genuine one, as such, dispossessing the petitioner from the subject land does not arise. Hence, no indulgence need be shown on the petitioner and prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. Learned counsel for the unofficial respondents on counter contended 5. that the petitioner has created a bogus patta for the subject land which is allotted for house site pattas under the scheme ‘Navaratnalu-Ped alandariki illu’ and illegally constructed a shed there and threatened the villagers of Pasumanda Harijanawada. When the villagers approached the Mandal Revenue Officer, the petitioner got filed suit and got ex parte temporary injunction. Subsequently, the petitioner approached this Court without revealing the real facts and respondent No.3 in his counter categorically stated about the creation of bogus patta by the petitioner. He further submitted that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief and prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. 6. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 4 The petitioner is claiming the subject property by way of patta issued in his favour. To show his possession over the property, he filed D-form patta, Form 1-B and pattadar passbook with regard to subject property. Perusal of the record would indicate that when the unofficial respondents were interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the property, the petitioner filed O.S.NO.1067 of 2021 on the file of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa seeking permanent injunction and the said Court granted temporary injunction dated 18.11.2021 pending suit. In the counter, the Tahsildar has categorically stated that the house site patta produced by the petitioner before this Court is fake and fictitious. Initially, this Court directed to maintain status quo with regard to subject property. 7. As stated supra, the stand of the revenue authorities is that the patta produced by the petitioner is fake one. In the counter affidavit of the Tahsildar, 8. nowhere it spelt out as to how and when the same was discovered by the revenue authorities. Further, it is not clearly mentioned how the respondent authorities came to the conclusion that the patta is fake one. If the said patta is not genuine, a duty is cast upon the authorities to explain to this Court as to how the patta is not genuine. In the absence of any such pleading or proof, this Court cannot accept the contention of the revenue authorities that the patta produced by the petitioner is fake. In these circumstances, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be brushed away. 9. Further, the Pattadar Pass book was also issued in favour of petitioner and his name also found in adangal as«^attadar. There is no specific answer 5 on the said document by the respondents. In view of the material available record and for the reasons stated supra, the petitioner’s documents cannot be thrown away at this stage under Writ Jurisdiction. on In view of the above and taking the submissions of learned counsel for the parties into consideration, this Court is of the opinion that by merely raising a plea of a fake patta, the petitioner’s case cannot be dismissed. In view of the same, this Court is inclined to dispose of the Writ Petition by passing the following order; 10. “The respondent authorities are directed not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner over the subject property i.e., Ac.2.50 cents in survey No.44/6 of Pasumanda village, Gudipala Mandal, Chittoor District, except under due process of law. However, it is made clear that if the respondent authorities are still of the opinion that the patta is fake, they are always at liberty to initiate appropriate action in accordance with law. The petitioner has to put on notice and given an opportunity to defend his case.” 11. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications pending, if any in the Writ Petition, shall also stand closed. SD/- K. SRINIVASA RAJU assistant //TRUE COPY// GISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. The District Collector, Chittoor District, Chittoor. 3. The Tahsildar, Gudipala mandal, Chittoor District. 4. One CC to Sri Suresh Kumar Reddy Kalava, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 6. One CC to Sri G. Jagadeeswar, Advocate (OPUC) 7. Three C.D. Copies. Cnr HIGH COURT DATED:29/01/2025 f 0 5 MAR 2025 1 ^ . Current Section ^^ ORDER WP.No.4349 of 2022 DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS