IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVA (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 5050 OF 2025 Between: M. Madhavi, W/o Venkata Narayana, Aged 47years, Occ: House Wife, Residing at PeddaKammavariPalli Village, Puttaparty Mandal, Satya Sai District. ...PETITIONER AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravthi, Guntur District. The Collector, Sri Satya Sai District, Puttaparthy, Sri Satya Sai District. The Joint Collector, Satya Sai District Puttaparthy Puttaparthy, Sri Satya Sai District. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kadiri, Ravindra Reddy Nagar, Bathalapalle Satya Sai District. The Tahsildar, Puttaparthy Mandal, Puttaparthy, Sri Satya Sai District. C.C. Subha Chandra, S/o. C. C. Narayana, Aged 46 Years, Occ; Agriculture, Residing at PeddaKammavari Patti Village, Puttaparthy Mandal, Satya Sai District. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. ...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 a Direction more particularly one in Writ of Certiorari by calling records in Rc.No.3717/2020/D4, Dt. 20-09-2024, consequentially quash the impugned proceedings in Rc.No.3717/202 0/D4, Dt. 20-09-2024 passed by the 3'^'^ Respondent. and lA NO: 1 OF 2n?fi Petition under Section 151 CPC stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the impugned order passed by the 3'"^ Respondent in Rc.No.3717/2020/D4, Dt:20-09-2024 praying that in the circumstances pending Disposal of this Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SHAIK RAFI Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 5: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.6: SRI SESHADRI GOALLA The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010094372025 f IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) BBS Bi^S [3329] MONDAY ,THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 5050/2025 Between: ...PETITIONER M Madhavi AND ...RESPONDENT(S) The State Of Ap and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.SHAIK RAFI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR REVENUE 2.SESHADRI GOALLA The Court made the following: 2 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 5050/2025 ORDER; This Writ Petition is filed challenging the impugned order rd dated 20.09.2024 in Rc.No.3717/2020/D4 passed by the 3 respondent. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 5 and the learned counsel for respondent No.6. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority, wherein the Appellate Authority passed an order holding that the petitioner is the pattadar and possessor to the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.0.70 cents in survey No.11-1E of Brahanapalli Village of Puttaparthy Mandal. The unofficial respondents filed Revision Petition challenging the order dated 05.08.2020 passed by the 4*'^ respondent, wherein it is held as under; “After perusal all the available records, it is observed that the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kadiri has ignored the critical fact of the sale transaction vide registered sale deed document NO.273/1998 dated 11.03.1998 which is executed by Sri B.Ramamurthy in favour of the Revision Petitioner in respect of the subject land. Based on the registered sale document, the revision petitioner has obtained pattadar pass books for the subject land. The respondent has claiming right to an extent of 3 Ac.0.70 cents out of Ac. 0.82 cents in Sy.No.11-1 E i.e., an extent of Ac. 0.35 cents which was purchased by her grandfather from C.C.Venkataramudu and others in the year 1995 and remaining extent Ac. 0.35 cents succeeded from their ancestors. But the respondent has not taken possession over the land and not obtained Pattadar Pass books. The Tahsildar, Puttaparthy has reported that the subject land Is under possession and enjoyment of the revision petitioner. Any person who have aggrieved by the issuance of Pattadar passbooks and title deeds, they should have filed a statutory appeal under Section 5(5) of the Act, within the time limit or a civil suit under Section 8(2) of the Act before the competent Civil Court. In this case, the appeal Is filed after lapse of 20 years after issuance of Pattadar pass books in favour of the revision petitioner. Moreover, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kadiri has ignored the fact of continuous possession by the revision petitioner and passed orders without giving opportunity to the revision petitioner for filing counter arguments, which is against the principles of natural justice. Hence the orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, kadiri in Rc.No.1173/2019/E2 dated 05.08.2020 are hereby set aside and the case is remanded back to the District Revenue Officer, Sri Sathya Sai/Appellate Authority with a direction to conduct enquiry afresh, after giving opportunity to all the interested parties and to pass appropriate orders as per A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 and Rules 1989 there under. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed. ” k. 4 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the th Revisionai Authority relied upon the report submitted by the 5 respondent for holding that the unofficial respondent/revision petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the property. The petitioner made an RTI application for enquiry report. The said report respondent was submitted on 07.01.2025, which is subsequent to the revisionai order. Therefore, such a finding of the th of the 5 revisionai authority is contrary to the facts and without there being any such report as on that date. He further submits that even though the matter remanded to the appellate authority once again for adjudication of the same, but holding such a finding of the appellate authority may defeat the interest of the petitioner. Hence, the Writ Petition. 5. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 5 submits that the Revisionai Authority after perusal of the entire record of the petitioner and the respondents, passed an order in detail by discussing the entire evidence placed on record before him. He further submits that finally, if the matter was remanded for fresh enquiry neither the rights of the petitioner nor the respondents were affected by remanding the matter by the revisionai authority and whatever contents made before this Court, the petitioner is entitled. Whatever contended before this Court, will certainly put forth before the revisionai authority to come to a 5 ■rS^ conclusion basing upon records as well as contention of both the parties. Therefore, the rights of both the parties are not prejudice in any way. Hence, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. Learned counsel for respondent No.6 submits that the petitioner preferred an appeal after long time i.e., after acquisition and mutation of the revision petitioner as pattadar of the subject land and revision petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the subject property since long time. The revision petitioner is ready to participate in the fresh enquiry conducted by the appellate authority. The order passed by the revisional authority dated 20.09.2024 is after considering the entire evidence on record and after hearing both the parties, the orders is passed afresh. The said order cannot be interfered. 7. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondent Nos.1 to 5 and the learned counsel for respondent No.6, it is observed that the revisional authority passed a detailed order on 20.09.2024 by holding that the appellate authority i.e., 4'^ respondent herein passed an order in appeal filed by the petitioner on 05.08.2020 is missing of the facts and contrary to the record placed before him and further directed the appellate authority to consider afresh the material whichever is placed before the revisional authority and pass appropriate orders after due enquiry afresh. In view of the remand of the matter certainly either the rights of the petitioner or rights of the respondents to be crystallized. The apprehension of the petitioner, the appellate authority shall proceed without considering the facts referred by the revisional authority. 8. In view of the facts stated above, this Court is of the considered view the present Writ Petition can be disposed of directing the petitioner to submit an appeal afresh to the District Revenue Officer as directed by the revisional authority within a period of four(4) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Order. After filing such an appeal, the District Revenue officer shall provide an opportunity of hearing to both the parties for filing counter and replies if any and pass appropriate orders basing upon the evidence put forth by the parties and in accordance with law, within a period of six(6) months from the date of filing of the appeal. In the meanwhile, the parties are directed to maintain status-quo with regard to the possession and enjoyment of the property of the petitioner. 9. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel miscellaneous application, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. Sd/- N. NAGAMMA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravthi, Guntur District. 2. The Collector, Sri Satya Sai District, Puttaparthy, Sri Satya Sai District. The Joint Collector, Satya Sai District Puttaparthy Puttaparthy, Sri Satya Sai District. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kadiri, Ravindra Reddy Nagar, Bathalapalle Satya Sai District. The Tahsildar, Puttaparthy Mandal, Puttaparthy, Sri Satya Sai District. One CC to Sri Shaik Rafi, Advocate[OPUC] One CC to Sri Seshadri Goalla, Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] Three CD Copies. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. ssb f HIGH COURT DATED:03/03/2025 ORDER WP.No.5050 of 2025 S 01 APR 2025 ' ^ . Current Section . ^ ^^s£^spatch«5-^ a Co. DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS