APHC010715572025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] THURSDAY, THE 17th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 176/2026 Between: 1. BONANGI ARJUNA RAO, S/O.LATE LAKSHMINARAYANA, AGRICULTURE, R/O.KOTTA VEEDHI, SOLIKIRI VILLAGE, BHAMINI MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT, A.P.532456. . ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.522237 2. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF LAND ADMINISTRATION, APIIC TOWERS, MANGALAGIRI,GUNTUR DISTRICT.522503 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SRIKAKULAM, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT.532001 4. THE JOINT COLLECTOR CUM SETTLEMENT OFFICER, SRIKAKULAM. SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT.532001 5. THE SUBCOLLECTOR, TEKKALI, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT.532201. 6. THE TAHSILDAR, KOTTURU MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT.532455 7. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, IRRIGATION SECTION, KOTTURU,SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT.532455 8. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, KARLEMMA VILLAGE, KOTTURU MANDAL,SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT.532455 ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents more particularly, the 4th respondent, in issuing proceedings in Rc.No.412/2023/F3, dated 06.10.2024 against the petitioners application received b the office dated 17.02.2023 as illegal and arbitrary, violation ofby 9 rY, principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the said proceedings, dated 06.10.2024 and also to direct the respondents to follow due process to mutate the name of the petitioner in the revenue records in respect of the land to an extent of Ac.2.20 cents covered by Sy.No.190 of Karlemma Village, Kotturu Mandal, Srikakulam District and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 impugned proceedings in Rc.No.412/2023/F3 , dated 06.10.2024 issued by the Joint Collector, Srikakulam and pending disposal of the main Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. B VAMSI KRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. Yarraguntla.Koteswara Rao,Standing Counsel For Zilla Praja Parishads,Mandal Praja Parishads and Gra 3. GP FOR IRRI AND CAD The Court made the following: ORDER Heard Sri B.Vamsi Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Divya Teja, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondents 1 to 6 and Sri Y.Koteswara Rao, learned standing counsel for the 8th respondent. Page 3 of 6 2. Assailing the proceedings of the 4th respondent, Joint Collector, vide Rc.No.412/2023/F3, dated 06.10.2024 (Ex.P1), the above writ petition is filed. 3. Case of the petitioner, in a nutshell, is that the petitioner‟s father possessed an extent of Ac.2.20 cents in S.No.190 of Karlemma village, Kotturu Mandal. The petitioner‟s father, during his lifetime, cultivated the said land, and his name was recorded in the SLR. After the death of his father, the petitioner succeeded to the property, and he made an application under Section 11(a) of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 and along with the application, the petitioner filed a copy of the SLR and other revenue records. The Deputy Tahsildar (Re-survey) submitted a report dated 30.01.2024 (Ex.P3) to the Tahsildar. The Village Surveyor, Karlemma village, also conducted a survey and submitted a report (Ex.P7) to the Tahsildar, Kotturu. The Tahsildar, Kotturu, in turn, submitted a report vide Rc.No.60/2023 Typist dated 29.01.2024 (Ex.P8) to the Collector, Srikakulam. Without considering the reports (Exs.P3, P7 & P8), the 4th respondent passed the impugned order (Ex.P1), rejecting the claim of the petitioner. 4. A counter affidavit was filed by the 4th respondent. It was contended, inter alia, that an extent of Ac.2.20 cents in S.No.190 of Karlemma village is Government land and is classified as Tamara Cheruvu. The petitioner‟s father neither was in possession of the property nor cultivated the land. The name of the petitioner‟s father was not recorded in the SLR. The Village Revenue Officer & Village Surveyor, Karlemma village and Mandal Surveyor of Kotturu submitted erroneous reports without proper field verification. Consequently, the Tahsildar, Kotturu, issued a show cause notice vide Rc.No.60/2023 (Typist), dated 15.06.2024, calling for their explanations. Thereafter, based on the instructions of the District Collector, Srikakulam and the Sub-Collector, Tekkali, the then Tahsildar, Kotturu, conducted a fresh inspection along with the Mandal Surveyor, Village Revenue Officer and Village Surveyor. As per the settlement fair adangal of Karlemma village, Survey No.190 was subdivided into Survey No.190/1 admeasuring an extent of Ac.2.00 cents (recorded in the name of Forest Department) and Survey No.190/2 admeasuring Ac.25.20 cents, classified as Burial Ground and „Tamara Cheruvu‟. Upon physical verification of S.No.190/2, it is revealed that an extent of Ac.4.12 cents of land is covered by Tamara Cheruvu, an extent of Ac.3.94 cents is covered by burial ground, and an extent of Ac.17.14 cents of land is covered by Temples, MPUP School, Housing Colony and CC Roads. Thus, after conducting a hearing and examination of records, the 4th respondent–Joint Collector rejected the claim of the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue reiterated the contentions as per the averments in the respective writ affidavit and counter affidavit. CONSIDERATION OF THE COURT: 6. The order of the 4th respondent contains seven references. Neither Ex.P3 nor Exs.P7 & P8 were referred to in the Ex.P1 proceedings of the 4th respondent. Ex.P1 does not even indicate that departmental action, if any, was initiated against the Village Surveyor and Mandal Surveyor. Even going by Ex.P1, it was observed as follows: The Sy.No.190 as per Fasali 1417 (2007) old manual Adangal recorded as follows: Sy. No. Classification Extent Remarks 190-1 Poramboke 23.02 Tamara Cheruvu, Burial Ground 190-2 Poramboke 2.00 Pattadar/Enjoyer Clom.Nil 190-3 Poramboke 1.90 Pattadar/Enjoyer Clom.Nil 190-4 Poramboke 0.28 Pattadar/Enjoyer Clom.Nil Total 27.20 7. This Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, normally will not record any finding with respect to genuineness or otherwise of Exs.P3, P7 & P8. However, nothing is forthcoming from the record regarding the furnishing of report of the Tahsildar to the petitioner, on which reliance was placed by the 4th respondent. 8. By filing a counter affidavit, the 4th respondent supplemented the reasons beyond the findings in Ex.P1 and the same is impermissible. In Mohinder Singh Gill Vs. Chief Election Commr.1, the Hon‟ble Apex Court observed thus: “8. The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. We may here draw attention to the observations of Bose, J. in Gordhandas Bhanji [Commr. of Police, Bombay v. Gordhandas Bhanji, 1951 SCC 1088 : AIR 1952 SC 16] : “Public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the actings and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself.” Orders are not like old wine becoming better as they grow older.” 9. Moreover, as observed supra, the 4th respondent failed to consider Exs.P3, P7 & P8. Non-consideration of Exs.P3, P7 & P8 vitiates Ex.P1 1 (1978) 1 SCC 405 : 1977 SCC OnLine SC 323 proceedings. On that ground alone, the proceedings impugned are liable to be set aside. 10. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the proceedings of the 4th respondent-Joint Collector vide Rc.No.412/2023/F3, dated 06.10.2024 (Ex.P1) are set aside. The matter is remanded to the 4th respondent. The learned 4th respondent shall consider the application made by the petitioner afresh after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and duly considering Exs.P3, P7 & P8 reports. The 4th respondent shall furnish the copy of the report of the Tahsildar to the petitioner to enable him to submit additional explanation, if any. The 4th respondent shall complete the enquiry within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 11. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is Allowed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI PVD