APHC010105972025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM-^ WRIT APPEAL NO: 692 OF 2025 Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dt. 04.03.2024 in WP No. 4263 of 2024 on the file of the High Court. _ Between: 1. Bandi Yerramma, W/o. Bandi Chinnappa, Aged about 56 years, Occ. Coolie, Resident of T Sundupalli village and Mandal, YSR Kadapa District. 2. Smt Bandi Prasanna, W/o.Bandi Ravi, Aged about 35 years Occ; Coolie Resident of T Sundupalli village and Mandal, YSR Kadapa District. 3. Smt Bandi Govindamma, W/o.Krishnaiah, Aged about 54 years, Occ. Coolie, Resident of T Sundupalli village and Mandal, YSR Kadapa District. 4. Smt Bandi Chinnakkamma, W/o.Bandi Sudhakar Aged about 40 years, Occ.Coolie, Resident of T Sundupaili village and Mandal, YSR Kadapa District ...Petitioners AND 1. Somalaraju Balarama Raju, S/o S Achi Raju, Aged about 47 years, Occ. Agriculturist, R/o.D.No.18/7, Polimerapalli Village, T Sundupalli, Annamayya District 2. The State of AP, Rep by its Principal Secretary Department of Revenue Secretariat Velagapudi Amaravathi 3. The District Collector, Annamayya District at Rayachoty. 4. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajampet, Annamayya District. 5. The Tahsildar, T Sundupalli Mandal, Annamayya District ...Respondents lA NO: 3 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 suspend the order, dated 04.03.2024 made in W.P.No.4263 of 2024. ^ Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI PAPUDIPPU SASHIDAR REDDY^ Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 to 5: GP FOR REVENUE ^ Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI B ABHAY SIDDHANTH MOOTHA The Court made the following order: APHC010105972025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3541] TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT APPEAL NO: 692/2025 Between: Band! Yerramma and Others ...APPELLANT(S) AND Somalaraju Balarama Raju and Others Counsel for the Appellant(S): ...RESPONDENT(S) 1.PAPUDIPPU SASHIDAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR REVENUE 2.B.ABHAY SIDDHANTH MOOTHA The Court made the following Judgment: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) The 1®' respondent, claiming to be the owner of Ac.222.22 sq.yards of land in Sy.No. 1588/1 of T. Sundupalli Village and Mandal, Annamayya District, on the contention that he had purchased this land by way of a deed of sale, dated 21.12.2023, registered as document No.3025/2023 with the Joint Sub-Registrar, T. Sundupalli, had approached this Court, by way of 2 RRR, J&JS,J W.A.No.692 of 2025 W.P.No.4263 of 2024. The case of the 1®‘ respondent is that the appellants herein, who were arrayed as respondents 5 to 8 in the Writ Petition, were instigating the Revenue Authorities, arrayed as respondents 2 to 4 herein, to evict the respondent from the said land and that such eviction would be illegal and arbitrary. A learned Single Judge of this Court, by an order, dated 2. 04.03.2024, had disposed of this Writ Petition, with a direction to the Revenue Authorities not to interfere in the said land except in accordance with law. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants have approached this 3. Court, by way of the present Writ Appeal. The primary contention of the appellants is that the said order had 4. been passed without notice to them and without opportunity being given to them to set out the correct facts. The case of the appellants is that the aforesaid land had actually been assigned to them as house site pattas by the Government and that they have been in possession of the land since the land was assigned to them in the year 2021. The learned counsel for the appellants contends that the 5. appellants had initially filed W.P.No.34144 of 2022, against the Revenue Authorities, who sought to evict them from the land and had obtained interim directions on 04.11.2022, Subseqeuntly, the appellants had also moved W.P.No.18 of 2024 and W.P.No.4423 of 2024 for asking their possession over RRR, J&JSJ W.A.No.€92of2025 the said land and appropriate directions had also been given for not interfering With the possession of the land. The learned counsel also contends that in view of the orders of the Court, in the above Writ Petitions, and in view of the fact that the land had been assigned to them, they should opportunity of hearing to set out their The appellants would also contend that the 1 have been given an case before the learned Single Judge, respondent does not have any title to the land in question in as much as the vendor of the 1®* respondent sought to make out title on the basis of a simple letter given by the Panchayat Secretary attesting to the possession of the vendor of the 1 respondent over the said land. The appellants contend that there is no independent title which can be traced by the 1®* respondent and as such the alleged sale deed ought to have been ignored. 6. The learned counsel for the 1®* respondent would contend that the land in question is gramakantam land as can be seen from the reply to the Right to Information obtained by the appellants. The 1*‘ respondent would I \ contend that title to the gramakantham land would only arise by way of possession of the land and the certificate of possession, said to have been given by the Panchayat Secretary, makes out sufficient title in favour of the vendor of the respondent. Consequently, sale by the vendor of the 1®' respondent would be a valid sale conferring title on the 1®* respondent. 7. We do not propose to go into these issues as the same are issues of fact which require to be ascertained in a properly constituted 4 RRR,J&JS.J W.A. No.692 of 2025 litigation and the same cannot be gone into by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, it would suffice to record thai the order passed in the Writ Petition was a direction to the Revenue Authorities not to interfere in the dispute between the 1®* respondent and the appellants. There is no finding by the learned Single Judge against the appellants herein. In the circumstances, this Writ Appeal is disposed of, holding that the order of the learned Single Judge would not in any manner affect the rights of the appellants or the 1®* respondent over the said land and their respective rights may be ascertained by way of proceedings before an appropriate forum. There shall be no order as to costs. 8. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- M.RAMESH BABU DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// - ECTION OFFICER I To, The Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, Secretariat Velagapudi Amaravathi. The District Collector, Annamayya District at Rayachoty. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajampet, Annamayya Di^ict. The Tahsildar, T Sundupalli Mandal, Annamayya District One CC to Sri Papudippu Sashidar Reddy Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] One CC to Sri B Abhay Siddhanth Mootha Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. TF "1 HIGH COURT DATED:17/06/2025 ORDER WA NO. 692 OF 2025 ^ I * JLiL ?n« ^ . Current Section ^ m O 69/; DISPOSING OF THE W.P., WITHOUT COSTS