5APHC010079002022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3458] MONDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 4990/2022 Between: 1. GLN SRAVAN KUMAR, AGE 31 YRS, S/O LATE. G.C. SEKHAR, DNO. 3/113, III ROAD, 6TH CROSS, NEW TOWN, ANANTHAPURAMU - 515004 ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS. SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT FOR LANDS, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, 4TH BLOCK, GROUND FLOOR, ROOM NO. 135, A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI - 522503 2. THE STATE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER CUM C.C.L.A., CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF LAND AND ADMINISTRATION LAND ACQUISITION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI. 3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR CUM DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, OFFICE OF THE ANANTHAPURAMU COLLECTORATE, DRIVERS COLONY, ASHOK NAGAR, ANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 4. THE JOINT COLLECTOR CUM SETTLEMENT OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE ANANTHAPURAMU COLLECTORATE, DRIVERS COLONY, ASHOK NAGAR, ANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 5. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER CUM LAND ACQUISITION 2 OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE R.D.O.,ANANTHAPURAM REVENUE DIVISION, BESIDE D.R.D.A. OFFICE, NEAR RYTHU BAZAR, ANANTHAPURAMU 6. TAHSILDAR CUM ESTATE MANAGER, OFFICE OF THE MANDAL TAHSILDAR, H.L.C. COMPOUND, 1ST ROAD EXTENSION, ANANTHAPURAM MANDAL, ANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. ...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 may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring action of the respondents in not restoring possession of our land admeasuring of Ac.0.69 cents in Survey No.51/7, in Papampeta village, Ananthapur Mandal, Ananthapur District in respect of which possession certificates were granted by respondent 6 having cancelled the said possession certificates as arbitrary, illegal, un constitutional and violation of Article 300-A and well settled principals of natural justice and consequently either restore the possession of Ac.0.69 cents in Survey No.51/7, in Papampeta village, Ananthapur Mandal, Ananthapur District and Honble Court Pass such other or further orders as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice. Prayer is amended as per the Court's Order dt.25.11.2025 in I.A.No.01 of 2025. IA NO: 1 OF 2022 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 therefore prayed that this Honourable High Court Directed the competent authorities/respondents herein to pass reasoned order but the 6"respondent and other respondents has failed to follow the procedure contemplated under the aforesaid statute in acquiring the lands situated in Survey No. 51/7, Ac. 0.69 cents, in Papampeta Village, Ananthapuramu Mandal and Revenue Division, AnanthapuramuDistrictand as such, said acquisition is illegal, irregular, irrational and contrary to the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. IA NO: 1 OF 2024 3 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 grant leave for Reply Affidavit in the writ petition No. 12863 of 2020 and pass IA 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 issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring action of the respondents in not restoring possession of our land admeasuring of Ac. 0.69 cents in Survey No. 51/7, in Papampeta village, Ananthapur Mandal, Ananthapur District in respect of which possession certificates were granted by respondent 6 having cancelled the said possession certificates as arbitrary, illegal, un constitutional and violation of Article 300 - A and well settled principals of natural justice and consequently either restore the possession of Ac. 0.69 cents in Survey No. 51/7, in Papampeta village, Ananthapur Mandal, Ananthapur District or pay the compensation in accordance with law for the land covered by the possession certificates issued by the respondents of Ac. 0.69 cents in Survey No. 51/7, in Papampeta village, Ananthapur Mandal, Ananthapur District and Hon’ble Court Pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. PANGA SIVANARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following Order: Heard Sri C. Rama Chandra Raju, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Panga Sivanarayana, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondents. 2. The grievance of the petitioner in the instant Writ Petition is that the respondents have unauthorizedly granted possession certificate in respect of the subject land in Sy.No.51/7, Ac.0.69 cents in Papampeta Village, Ananthapuramu Mandal and Revenue Division, Ananthapuramu District, in 4 favour of third parties. The said certificates were subsequently cancelled, however possession of the said land was not restored. 3. It is contended that the possession certificates granted by the respondentsin favour of the third respondents were cancelled by the respondent No.6-Tahsildar, vide proceedings, dated 25.03.2021 observing thatwithout having the proper knowledge about the classification of the subject landwhich is private patta land (Shotrium land),straight away possession certificates were issued in favour of the third parties vide proceedings in Rc.No.B/946/2018, dated 19.05.2018 without following due process of law. It is further stated that there are no records such as house site grant register, house site file etc.Thus the proceedings issued were liable to be cancelled. Accordingly vide proceedings dated 25.03.2021 the possession certificates granted in favour of third parties were cancelled. 4. It is contended that the petitioner herein previously filed a Writ Petition before this Court in W.P.No.12894 of 2020 challenging the action of the respondents in granting occupation certificates in respect of his private patta land in favour of third parties. The said Writ Petition was disposed of directing the respondents to consider the representations filed by the petitioner. However, the respondents have failed to pass appropriate orders, thus the petitioner filed Contempt Case in C.C.No.74 of 2021. After filing of the said Contempt case, the 6th respondent issued notices to the petitioner as well as the affected persons. The petitioner submitted his explanation, the respondent No.6 has passed the proceedings dated 25-03-2021, cancelling 5 the possession certificates without restoring the possession of the subject lands despite admitting in the impugned proceedings that the subject land is private patta land. It is contended that the affected parties arestill in possession of the subject properties, even after cancelling the possession certificate, the Tahsildar did not even direct the affected persons to deliver the possession of the property. Thus the petitioner filed the instant Writ Petition seeking compensation or restoring the possession of the subject property in his favour. 5. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue draws the attention of this Court to the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No.6. Wherein it is stated that by oversight the possession certificate was granted and the same was subsequently cancelled. It is further stated that even by the date of granting the possession certificates, those affected persons were already in possession of the subject properties. In recognition of earlier possession over the subject properties, certificates were granted. 6. Considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the possession certificate granted by the Tahsildar in favour of the beneficiaries identified by them and which have been cancelled subsequently, reflects that, apart from recognition of possession,it also grants a right in favour of the said beneficiaries to pledge the documents and obtain loan from the AP State Housing Corporation Limited and till such time, the loans are cleared, the documents would not be released in favour of the beneficiaries. No material has been placed on record,to show that the aggrieved party has challenged 6 the proceedings of the Tahsildar dated 25.03.2021 cancelling the possession certificate. It is not clear from the record that, although the proceedings dated 25.03.2021 states that a copy of the proceedings of the cancellation certificates should be served on all 56 affected parties. Nothing has been placed on record by the respondents, if any of the affected persons are served with these proceedings. The petitioner is deprived of his valuable property by the said action of the respondents in unilaterally granting possession certificates in favour of third parties without having any manner of right or title over the said property. 7. Sri C. Rama Chandra Raju, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argues that if the respondents are unable to evict the said beneficiaries in whose favour the possession certificate was granted,the petitioner, is entitled to be paid compensation in terms of the provisions ofRight to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (RFCTLARR Act). 8. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue would seriously oppose the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that by the date of granting the possession certificate itself, the persons were inphysical possession of the same. Recognizing their possession the certificates were given, therefore the petitioners are not entitled for land acquisition compensation. 7 9. I am unable to accept to the said submission made by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, having regard to the fact thatfirstly the respondents should not have issued possession certificates in favour of third parties,over private patta land that does not belong to the government. Secondly, the possession certificate not only recognises the possession of the beneficiaries mentioned therein but also grants a license to deal with the property as absolute owners, as reflected in its clauses. It allows them to obtain a loan by mortgaging/pledging the certificate from the lending agency identified by the respondents, as mentioned in the possession certificate. In the light of the said facts, it is not a mere possession certificate; it also grants a license or authorizes them to mortgage and obtain a loan, which ordinarily occurs in a registered sale document in a transaction between two private parties. Even if the said documents are cancelled, as it is stated that the beneficiaries of the said documents are continuing in possession.Under the said circumstances, merely cancelling the possession certificates without delivering the possession of the property would not amount to rendering justice to the petitioner whose land has been taken away by the respondents, without any authority of law. Therefore, it would not lie in the mouth of the respondents to contend that, even by the date of grant of possession certificates, the 52 persons were already in possession of the subject property. As observed supra by cancellation of the same would not wipe out the liability of the respondents, without restoring the possession to the petitioner, as the subject land is not government land. Having realized the 8 mistake it was incumbent upon them to restore possession to the petitioner. Therefore in my considered view the possession of the petitioner in respect of the subject property should be restored or compensation in accordance with law should be paid by the respondents. 10. Having regard to the same, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the respondents to restore the possession of the petitioner in respect of the subject land. If for any reason they are unable to restore the possession in favour of the petitioner they should grant compensation to the petitioner in terms of the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, within period of six (06) months from the date of receipt of the order. 11. With the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of.There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed. ______________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA Dated: 02.03.2026 MSI 9 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 4990/2022 Dated: 02.03.2026 MSI