APHC010001352026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3558] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA WRIT APPEAL NO: 61/2026 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent to allow the Writ appeal by setting aside the orders dated 06.10.2025 passed in WP. No. 614 of 2022 and pass Between: 1. N GANESH NAIDU, S/O SRI N SUBBA NAIDU AGED 55 YEARS OCC. CULTIVATION R/O RAVILLAVARI KANDRIGA VILLAGE YERPEDU MANDAL CHITTOOR DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH ...APPELLANT AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT A P SECRETARIAT VELAGAPUDI AMARAVATI GUNTUR DISTRICT- 522238. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH -517001 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, TIRUPATHI CHITTOOR DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESHMM-517001. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, YERPEDU MANDAL CHITTOOR DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH - 517619 5. D MANGAMMA, W/O VENKATESH R/O ST COLONY RAVILLAVARI KANDRIGA VILLAGE YERPEDU MANDAL CHITTOOR DISTRICT - 517526 6. D MARAMMA, W/O RAJAPPA R/O ST COLONY RAVILLAVARI KANDRIGA VILLAGE YERPEDU MANDAL CHITTOOR DISTRICT - 517526. 7. A NAGESWARI, W/O NAGAIAH R/O ST COLONY RAVILLAVARI KANDRIGA VILLAGE YERPEDU MANDAL CHITTOOR DISTRICT - 517526 8. K CHANDRAKALA, W/O K SEKHAR R/O ST COLONY RAVILLAVARI KANDRIGA VILLAGE YERPEDU MANDAL CHITTOOR DISTRICT - 517526. 9. D GANGADEVI, W/O GOVINDASWAMY R/O ST COLONY RAVILLAVARI KANDRIGA VILLAGE YERPEDU MANDAL CHITTOOR DISTRICT - 517526 10. P VINITHA, W/O RAJESH KUMAR R/O ST COLONY RAVILLAVARI KANDRIGA VILLAGE YERPEDU MANDAL CHITTOOR DISTRICT - 517526 RR 5 TO 10 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER OF THIS 2 CMR,J & GTK,J W.A.No.61 of 2026 COURT DT 13 06 2023 VIDE ORDER PASSED IN I A NO 2 OF 2023 ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 pleased to permit the Appellants to file the additional documents of D.K.Patta, Will Deed and Covered Judgments which are filed as list of documents in page No. 39 to 114 in the interest of justice and pass IA NO: 2 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 pleased to issue direction directing the Respondents are not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner's .property in an extent of Ac. 4. 05 cents in R.S.No.197/1 of Penumallam Village, Yerpedu Mandal, Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh and pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. T N M RANGA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. D V SASIDHAR The Court made the following: 3 CMR,J & GTK,J W.A.No.61 of 2026 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy) This Writ Appeal under Section 15 of the Act has been preferred challenging the order dated 06.10.2025 of the learned Single Judge passed in Writ Petition No.614 of 2022, whereby the writ petition was dismissed. 2. Heard Mr.T.N.M.Ranga Rao, learned counsel for the appellant, learned Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Mr.K.Srinivas, learned counsel representing Mr.D.V.Sasidhar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 to 10. 3. The writ petitioner claims to be the grandson of a person by name Pulla Lakshmamma, W/o Rama Naidu. According to the petitioner, she is his grandmother and the subject land was assigned to his maternal grandmother under D-Patta long back in the year 1968 on 07.02.1968, and that she has been in the possession of the said land. Thereafter, it is stated that she has executed an unregistered will dated 15.10.1983, bequeathing the said land in favour of the petitioner and thereafter his grandmother died and he became entitled to enjoy the said land. He contends that he has been in possession and enjoyment of the said land. But the official respondents herein have been making efforts to dispossess the petitioner from the subject land without following due process of law. Therefore, he has filed the writ petition before the learned Single Judge seeking direction not to dispossess the petitioner from the subject land. 4. The official respondents and the unofficial respondents have filed their counter affidavits opposing the claim of the petitioner. It is contended by the official respondents that the original assignee, Pulla Lakshmamma, sold away the said assigned land unauthorizedly to Venkata Chalapathi and K.Gunasekhar and subsequently they managed to obtain the same land by way of assignment under another D-Patta. Later, the Government has realized that the said two persons are not landless poor and they are wealthy persons and thereby the Government has cancelled the D-Pattas issued in their favour 4 CMR,J & GTK,J W.A.No.61 of 2026 and resumed the subject land to the Government in the year 2008. They have challenged the said orders before the CCLA and it was remanded to Joint Collector and the Joint Collector conducted an enquiry and found that they are not entitled to any D-Patta and thereby confirmed the order of cancellation of D-Pattas and thereafter the land was allotted to people of weaker sections, who are respondent Nos.5 to 10. Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 5. As per the events that took place as narrated supra, the land was assigned to maternal grandmother of the petitioner in the year 1968. But as she has sold away the said assigned land to the said two persons by name Venkata Chalapathi and K.Gunasekhar and as they managed to obtain D-Pattas in their favour in respect of the subject land and as they are found to be not landless poor and as they are wealthy persons, the said D-Pattas issued in their favour were rightly cancelled and the land was resumed to the Government. When the said two persons challenged the said proceedings before the CCLA and the Joint Collector, they have also confirmed the order of the cancellation of the D-Pattas and resumption of the land. Subsequently, it was assigned to unofficial respondents herein, who are landless poor. Therefore, when the pattas issued in favour of the said two persons were cancelled long back in the year 2008, and the land was resumed to the Government and it was also subsequently assigned to the weaker sections, who are the unofficial respondents herein, it cannot be said that the petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of the said land at present. In fact, the petitioner did not produce any evidence to prove that he has been in possession of the said land as on the date of filing the writ petition. If at all, the petitioner or his grandmother are aggrieved by the cancellation of the patta and resumption of the land, they have to challenge the same long back when they are cancelled in the year 2008, but they did not challenge the same. Therefore, the petitioner cannot now seek the relief claimed in the writ petition 5 CMR,J & GTK,J W.A.No.61 of 2026 not to dispossess the petitioner from the land and more particularly when he is not found to be in possession of the subject land. 6. Therefore, we do not find any legal flaw or infirmity in the impugned order of the learned Single Judge. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant prays to grant liberty to challenge the orders cancelling the patta and the resumption orders. 8. Resultantly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed, granting liberty as sought for, subject to law of limitation. There shall be no order as to costs. 9. As a sequel, Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, J ________________________ TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA, J Date : 27-01-2026 BMS