AMARAVATkjf^^^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAIV^ WRIT APPEAL NO: 105 OF 2025 ^ Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 28.11.2024 in WP No.27735 of 2021 on the file of the High Court.-- Between: 1. Thammisetty Guru Prasad, S/o. Late Nadipi Gurraiah, aged about 39 years Occ Cultivation, R/o. Narasingapalle Village, Porumamilla Mandal, YSR Kadapa District. 2. Thammisetty Pedda Gurappa, S/o. Late Tellaiah, aged about 63 years, Occ Cultivation, R/o. Cendluru Village, Chapadu Mandal, YSR Kadapa District. 3. India Pedda Subba Reddy, S/o. Venkata Reddy, aged about 70 years, R/o. Narsingapalle Village, Porumamilla Mandal, YSR Kadapa District. ...APPELLANTS^ AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. The District Collector, Kadapa, YSR Kadapa District. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajampeta Division, YSR Kadapa District. 4. The Tahsildar, Porumamilla Mandal, YSR Kadapa District. 5. Gampa Chalapathi, S/o. Venkata Kondaiah Aged about 46 years, Occ Cultivation, R/o. Narasingapalle Village, Porumamilla Mandal, YSR Kadapa District. ...RESPONDENTS- lA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioners from their private properties of an extent of Ac.0.91 cents in Sy.No.413, Ac.0.86 cents Sy.No.631/1 and Ac.0.81 in cents in Sy.No.631/2 of Rangasamudram Village, Porumamilla Mandal, YSR Kadapa District and the properties of an extent of Ac.0.36 cents in Sy.No.406/2, Ac.0.22cents in Sy.No.632/2 and Ac.0.92 cents in Sy.No.570 totaling to Ac.1.50 cents of Rangasamudram Village, Porumamilla Mandal YSR Kadapa District granted under DK Patta by suspending the impugned judgment dated 28.11.2024 in WP No.27735 of 2021, in the interest of justice. ^ Counsel for the Appellants: M/s. CORPUS JURIS LAW PANEL Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI S. DILIP JAYA RAM The Court made the following: JUDGMENT LLP 1 APHC010070072025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) QMS [3508] FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT APPEAL NO: 105/2025 Between: Thammisetty Guru Prasad, and Others ...APPELLANT(S) AND ...RESPONDENT(S) The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1.CORPUS JURIS LAW PANEL LLP Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR REVENUE 2.S DILIP JAYA RAM The Court made the following Judgment: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) The appellants herein claim ownership and possession over Ac.1.72 cents of land in Survey Nos.633/2, 631/1, 631/2 and Sy.No.413 of Rangasamudram Village, Porumamilla Mandal, YSR Kadapa District. The appellants, having come to know that the respondent was trying to dispossess the appellants from the land by incorporating the name of the 5th 2 respondent in the revenue records, had approached the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Badvel, by way of O.S.No.299 of 2020, for declaration of title and a permanent injunction restraining the respondent from interfering with their possession over the said land. 2. The said suit is still pending. Thereafter, the appellants had approached the Tahsildar, Porumamilla Mandal, by way of an application, dated 22.06.2021, to delete the name of the 5*^ respondent from the revenue records and to incorporate their names. This application was rejected by the Tahsidlar, by way of an endorsement, dated 23.07.2021, on the ground that the dispute, relating to title and possession of the land, is already pending before the Civil Court and no steps can be taken until there is a decision from the Civil Court. Aggrieved by this endorsement, the appellants had approached this Court, by way of W.P.No.27735 of 2021, contending that the Tahsidlar could not have refused to go into the matter, in as much as, the suit filed by the appellants would not, in any manner, bar the Tahsildar from going into the issues raised in the representation. A learned Single Judge of this Court, by an order dated 28.11.2024, had held that the appellants having approached the competent Civil Court and having filed a suit for declaration of title and for permanent injunction, could not have approached the Tahsildar and that the endorsement of the Tahsidlar cannot be treated to be wrong in any manner. On the basis of this finding, the learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition by an order dated 28.11.2024. 3. 3 Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants have approached this Court, by way of the present Writ Appeal. 4. Sri M.V. Rajaram, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants would contend that the names of the appellants have been removed from the revenue records, in an arbitrary fashion and without any proceedings being issued in relation to such deletion. He would further submit that the appellants had no notice of such deletion nor were the appellants given an opportunity of explaining their case, before their names were deleted from the revenue records. Sri M.V. Rajaram would contend that such an arbitrary deletion of entries is clearly impermissible and the same can be rectified by restoring the original names. 5. Sri K.S. Murthy, learned senior counsel appearing for Sri Dilip Jayaram, learned counsel appearing for the 5^^ respondent, would contend that the property in question belongs to the 5*^ respondent and the entries made in the revenue records are in accordance with the procedure. The learned Senior Counsel would also place the Judgment of the Junior Civil Judge, Badvel, dated 21.03.2011, in O.S.No.27 of 2011, wherein the 5 respondent had obtained an order of injunction against the appellants 1 and 2 herein. The learned Senior Counsel would also contend that the change in the entries had been done strictly in accordance with law and the contention to the contrary, by the appellants, cannot be accepted. The learned Senior CounseTwould also submit that the appellants having chosen to file a 6. th revenue 4 if suit cannot pursue parallel proceedings of the suit on one hand and proceedings before the revenue authorities on the other hand. The learned Senior Counsel has also placed a notice, dated 7. 28.12.2024, said to have been issued by the District Revenue Officer/Joint Collector, intimating the 5*^ respondent that a suo moto revision under Section 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short The ROR Act’) has been initiated on the basis of the representation of the appellants. He would submit that in view of the revisional proceedings being initiated, the grievance of the appellants has also addressed. However, the grievance of the appellants, apart from merits of the 8. case, is that their names were removed without following the process set out under the provisions of the R.O.R Act along with the Rules made thereunder. In the event of such an irregularity, it would always be open to the 9. Joint Collector, under Section 9 of the ROR Act, to ascertain whether the change in the revenue records has been done in accordance with the procedure set out in the Act. In the event of any finding that the process has not been followed, it would be open to the Joint Collector to take appropriate action. However, this Court must caution that the scope of revision, in such a case, would not extend to go into the merits of the respective claims of the parties before the Joint Collector. That would have to await the result of the suit which is presently pending before the civil Court. 5 Accordingly, this Writ Appeal is disposed of leaving it open to the Joint Collector, Kadapa, YSR Kadapa District, to take up the revision, would be restricted to the question of whether the claimed by the appellants, was done in 10. However, the said revision change in the revenue entries, as violation of the procedure set out in the ROR Act, and the Rules made there to both sides to raise all their under. Needless to say, it would be open before the Joint Collector. There shall be no order as to costs. contentions shall stand closed. There As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- M.RAMESH BABU DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ff^OFFICER SEC To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. The District Collector, Kadapa, YSR Kadapa District^ Divisional Officer, Rajampeta Division, YSR Kad^a 3. The Revenue District. Tahsildar, Porumamilla Mandal, YSR Kadapa Districts 4. The 5. The Joint Collector, Kadapa, YSR Kadapa District. 6. One CC to M/s. Corpus Juris Law Panel LLP, Advocate [OPUC] High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 7. Two CCs to GP for Revenue 8. Three CD Copies. ssb ,1^ HIGH COURT DATED:21/02/2025 JUDGMENT WA.No.105 of 2025 = 10 MAR 2075 ^ . Curreiu oecuon ^ ml S?l DISPOSING OF THE W.A. WITHOUT COSTS