APHC010065932022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: Between: Kasala Chennamma The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. RAMANI ANNAM Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER: The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent authorities are preventing her from conducting agricultural operations in her land in an extent of Ac.1-00 situated in R.S.No.2109 and in an extent of Ac.1 land in R.S.No.2109/1 of Kanthera Mandal, Kadapa District. W.P.No.4632 of 2022 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 4632/2022 ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: Counsel for the Respondent(S): The Court made the following: The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent authorities are preventing her from conducting agricultural operations in her land in an 00 situated in R.S.No.2109 and in an extent of Ac.1- land in R.S.No.2109/1 of Kantheragandla Village, Sri Avadutha Kasinayana RC,J W.P.No.4632 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3332] THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT(S) The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent authorities are preventing her from conducting agricultural operations in her land in an -50 cents of gandla Village, Sri Avadutha Kasinayana RC,J W.P.No.4632 of 2022 2 2. Heard Ms. Ramani Annam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Krishna Praneeth, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. 3. Ms. Ramani Annam, learned counsel, while reiterating the contents of the writ affidavit, would contend that the petitioner being poor and of schedule caste woman, she was assigned an extent of Ac.1-00 in Survey No.2109 out of the subject property in the year 2008 by way of DKT patta No.228/1417 and the remaining extent of Ac.1-50 cents in Survey No.2109/2 by grant of D-form patta No.67/1419, dated 20.01.2010 and eversince she has been doing cultivation in the said land and in recognition thereof, the revenue authorities entered her name in the revenue records and her name reflected in adangals. The learned counsel would further contend that respondent no.3 started directing her orally not to conduct any agricultural operations in the subject land, without issuing any prior notice, which is not only against the procedure but also violative of Articles 14,21 and 300A of the Constitution. There was no response to the representation made by petitioner to respondent no.2 on 07.02.2022. Hence, prayed to allow the writ petition directing the respondent authorities not to interfere with possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the subject land. 4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader, while reiterating the contents of the counter-affidavit would contend that as per the entries made in DKT register, the petitioner was assigned an extent of Ac.1-00 RC,J W.P.No.4632 of 2022 3 in Survey No.2109 vide DKT No.228/1417, and there is no record available in the office regarding the alleged assignment of Ac.1-50 cents of land by DKT No.67/1419, dated 20.01.2010 and the D-form patta projected by the petitioner dated 20.01.2010 is a fake and fabricated document. Further, the petitioner did not bring the assigned land in an extent of Ac.1-00 in Survey No.2109 under cultivation and the photographs filed along with the affidavit do not relate to the said extent of the land. The authorities had never issued any oral or written instructions to dispossess the petitioner from the land in an extent of Ac.1-00 assigned to her, however, the further action would be initiated against the petitioner duly following the procedure contemplated under A.P.Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act,1977. In response to the Spandana application dated 7.2.2022 of the petitioner, an endorsement dated 14.02.2022 was issued to her vide Ref.No.B/57/2022. The petitioner wants to grab an extent of Ac.1-50 cents of land which was not assigned to her by projecting a fake D-form patta. The writ petition being meritless deserves dismissal. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 5. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 6. The respondent authorities are contending that, out of the subject property, only an extent of Ac.1-00 cents situate in Survey No.2109 was assigned to the petitioner, however, she did not bring the said land under RC,J W.P.No.4632 of 2022 4 cultivation, whereas the remaining extent of Ac.1-50 cents situated in Survey No.2109/2 was never assigned to the petitioner, but the petitioner by projecting a fake D-form patta wants to grab the said extent of the land. 7. Except making a bold allegation that the D-form patta projected by the petitioner is a fake and fabricated document, no material whatsoever was placed on record as to when and how the authorities came across the fabrication of the document. There is also no explanation as to how the said extent of Ac.1-50 cents covered under the alleged fabricated D-form patta was included in the Pattadar passbook of the petitioner and how the said extent of Ac.1-50 cents came to be reflected in the revenue records in the name of the petitioner that to by referring the D-form patta number as well as date of issuance of the D-form patta. Therefore, the stand taken by the respondent authorities regarding fabrication of D-form patta is not convincing and it runs against the records maintained by the revenue authorities. 8. Be that as it may, since the revenue records placed on record would indicate that the petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of the property and as the respondent authorities failed to explain as to how the revenue records were mutated in the name of petitioner basing on the D-form Patta, which according to them is a fake and fabricated document, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition. RC,J W.P.No.4632 of 2022 5 9. In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent authorities not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the subject property, except under due process of law. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI RR