APHC010113212026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH FRIDAY, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY THE HONOURABLE SRI WRIT APPEAL NO WRIT APPEAL NO: 224 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent be pleased to set aside the order dated 10.02.2026 in WP. No. 3501 of 2026 passed by the Learned Single Judge of t Between: 1. YELAKALA VENKATI,, S/O VENKATANAIDU AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/O BC COLONY, BUDARAVALASA VIZI A NAG A RAM DISTRICT 535102 2. YELAKALA SATYAVATHI,, D/O SARIDI SURRAPUUDU AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/O BC COLONY VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT 535102 3. YELAKALA CHAKRADHAR RAO,, S/O VENKATI AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O BC COLONY BUDARAVALASA, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT 535102 4. YELAKALA POORNACHANDRA RAO, , S/O VENKTA NAIDU AGED AROUND 50 YEARS, R/O BC COLONY, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT 535102 5. YELAKALA SHANMUKHA RAO,, S/O VENKATA NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 65 YEAR, R/O BC COLONY BUDARAVALASA VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT 535102 6. YELAKALA LAKSHAMANA RAO, S/O VENKATA NAIDU AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/O BC COLONY VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT 535102 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA WRIT APPEAL NOS: 224 AND 225 OF 2026 OF 2026 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent be pleased to set aside the order dated 10.02.2026 in WP. No. 3501 of 2026 passed by the Learned Single Judge of this Honourable Court and pass such YELAKALA VENKATI,, S/O VENKATANAIDU AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/O BC COLONY, BUDARAVALASA VIZI A NAG A RAM YELAKALA SATYAVATHI,, D/O SARIDI SURRAPUUDU AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/O BC COLONY BUDARAVALASA, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT 535102 YELAKALA CHAKRADHAR RAO,, S/O VENKATI AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O BC COLONY BUDARAVALASA, VIZIANAGARAM YELAKALA POORNACHANDRA RAO, , S/O VENKTA NAIDU AGED AROUND 50 YEARS, R/O BC COLONY, BUDARAVALASA, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT 535102 YELAKALA SHANMUKHA RAO,, S/O VENKATA NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 65 YEAR, R/O BC COLONY BUDARAVALASA VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT 535102 YELAKALA LAKSHAMANA RAO, S/O VENKATA NAIDU AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/O BC COLONY BUDARAVALASA, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT 535102 ...APPELLANT(S) IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3558] THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent be pleased to set aside the order dated 10.02.2026 in WP. No. 3501 of 2026 passed by the his Honourable Court and pass such YELAKALA VENKATI,, S/O VENKATANAIDU AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/O BC COLONY, BUDARAVALASA VIZI A NAG A RAM YELAKALA SATYAVATHI,, D/O SARIDI SURRAPUUDU AGED BUDARAVALASA, YELAKALA CHAKRADHAR RAO,, S/O VENKATI AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O BC COLONY BUDARAVALASA, VIZIANAGARAM YELAKALA POORNACHANDRA RAO, , S/O VENKTA NAIDU AGED BUDARAVALASA, YELAKALA SHANMUKHA RAO,, S/O VENKATA NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 65 YEAR, R/O BC COLONY BUDARAVALASA YELAKALA LAKSHAMANA RAO, S/O VENKATA NAIDU AGED BUDARAVALASA, ...APPELLANT(S) 2 CMR,J & GTK,J W.A.Nos.224 & 225 of 2026 AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, A.P SECRETARIAT VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI 522238 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, VIZIANAGARAM 535003 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MERAKAMUDIDAM MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT 535102 4. THE MANDAL REVENUE OFFICER, MERAKAMUDIDAM MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT 535102 5. THE VILLAGE REVENUE OFFICER, BUDAVARALSA VILLAGE, MERAKAMUDIDAM MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT 535102 ...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 may be pleased to direct the Respondent No. 4 to restore the digital signature against the respective survey numbers located in Budarayavalasa Village, Merakamudidam Mandal, Vizianagaram District covered under the Khata Nos. 461, 187, 427, 679, 678 & 677dand pass any such other order/order(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 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 may be pleased to direct the Respondents to remove the subject lands located in Budarayavalasa Village, Merakamudidam Mandal, Vizianagaram District covered under Khata Nos. 461, 187, 427, 679, 678 & 677 from the dispute register and pass any such other order/order(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case IA NO: 3 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 may be pleased to suspend the operation of the Order dated 10.02.2026 in 3 CMR,J & GTK,J W.A.Nos.224 & 225 of 2026 WP No. 3501 of 2024 on the file of the Hon’ble High court of Andhra Pradesh and pass any such other order/order(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. JYOTHI RATNA ANUMOLU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE WRIT APPEAL NO: 225 OF 2026 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent appellant herein prefers this Memorandum of Writ Appeal aggrieved by the order dated 10.02.2026 in WP. No. 3531 of 2024 passed by the Learned Single Judge for the following among other Between: 1. YELAKALA VENKATI, S/O VENKATANAIDU AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/O BC COLONY, BUDARAVAIASA VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT 535102 2. YELAKALA SATYAVATHI,, D/O SARIDI SURRAPUUDU AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/O BC COLONY BUDARAVAIASA, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT 535102 3. 3. YELAKALA CHAKRADHAR RAO,, S/O VENKATI AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O BC COLONY BUDARAVAIASA, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT 535102 4. 4. YELAKALA POORNACHANDRA RAO,, S/O VENKTA NAIDU AGED AROUND 50 YEARS, R/O BC COLONY, BUDARAVAIASA, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT 535102 5. 5. YELAKALA SHANMUKHA RAO,, S/O VENKATA NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 65 YEAR, R/O BC COLONY BUDARAVAIASA VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT 535102 6. 6. YELAKALA LAKSHAMANA RAO, S/O VENKATA NAIDU AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/O BC COLONY BUDARAVAIASA, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT 5351 ...APPELLANT(S) AND 4 CMR,J & GTK,J W.A.Nos.224 & 225 of 2026 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, A.P SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI 522238 2. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, VIZIANAGARAM 535003 3. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MERAKAMUDIDAM MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT 535102 4. 4. THE MANDAL REVENUE OFFICER, MERAKAMUDIDAM MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT 535102 5. THE VILLAGE REVENUE OFFICER, BUDAVARALSA VILLAGE, MERAKAMUDIDAM MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT 535102 ...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 to direct the Respondents to remove the lands covered under Sy. Nos. 182-74, 182-82, 46-6, 46-7, 46-8, 177-2, 32-21 and 32-32 located in Budarayavalasa Village, Merakamudidam Mandal, Vizianagaram District from the dispute register 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 to direct Respondent No. 4 to restore the digital signature against the lands covered under Sy. Nos. 182-74, 182-82, 46-6, 46-7, 46-8, 177-2, 32-21 and 32-32 located in Budarayavalasa Village, Merakamudidam Mandal, Vizianagaram District and pass IA NO: 3 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 operation of the Order dated 10.02.2026 in WP No. 3531 of 2024 on the file of the Hon’ble High court of Andhra Pradesh to the extent of directing the Appellants to approach the Respondent No.3 for redressal of grievance and pass 5 CMR,J & GTK,J W.A.Nos.224 & 225 of 2026 Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. JYOTHI RATNA ANUMOLU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 6 CMR,J & GTK,J W.A.Nos.224 & 225 of 2026 The Court made the following: COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy) The common order of the learned Single Judge dated 10.02.2026 passed in writ petition Nos.3501 and 3531 of 2024 is under challenge in these writ appeals. 2. Heard Mr. Shaik Md. Umar Abdullah, learned counsel representing Ms. Jyothi Ratna Anumolu, learned counsel for the appellants and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents. 3. There is a dispute relating to the land between the petitioners and their family members. A suit was filed by the writ petitioners in O.S.No.58 of 2021 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Chipurupalli, for permanent injunction, against their family members. The Tahsildar concerned is also a party to the said suit. 4. As a dispute is pending in the Court in the said suit relating to the said land, the Tahsildar has kept the said property in the dispute register, subject to the outcome of the said civil suit. The petitioners, feeling aggrieved by the same, have submitted a representation to the Tahsildar to remove the said land from the dispute register. But, the Tahsildar has rejected the said representation. Therefore, challenging the order of the Tahsildar in keeping the said property in the dispute register and challenging the order of the Tahsildar in rejecting the representation of the writ petitioners to remove the said property from the dispute register, the aforesaid two writ petitions are filed before the learned Single Judge. 5. The learned Single Judge, by the impugned common order, found that the Tahsildar did not issue any notice before keeping the property in the dispute register. But, without ordering to remove the same from the dispute register and to follow the procedure prescribed for keeping the property in the dispute register, has only disposed of the writ petitions directing the petitioners 7 CMR,J & GTK,J W.A.Nos.224 & 225 of 2026 to make a representation before the 3rd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer by enclosing all necessary documents in support of their claim, with a direction to the 3rd respondent to dispose of the said representation, after verifying the records and take appropriate decision on merits within a period of four months. The writ petitions were disposed of with the above direction. 6. When the learned Single Judge found that the Tahsildar has entered the property in the dispute register without giving any notice to the writ petitioners, who are the affected parties, the learned Single Judge ought to have set aside the said order of keeping the property in dispute register and direct the Tahsildar to remove it from the dispute register and ought to have directed him to give notice to the parties concerned and cause an enquiry and then to take appropriate decision on it. Therefore, the impugned common order of the learned Single Judge is liable to be set-aside. 7. In fact, in the counter filed by the Tahsildar before the learned Single Judge, it is admitted that no notice was given before keeping the land in the dispute register. 8. In fact, as per settled law, it is only when a suit relating to any declaration of title or of like nature is pending, then the Tahsildar may be justified in keeping the property in the dispute register and that too after issuing notice to the affected parties. But, a mere suit for bare injunction may not afford a ground to keep the property in the dispute register. This aspect has not been taken into consideration by the Tahsildar. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants also relied on a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court on this aspect rendered in the case of Medarametla Venkata Sesha Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others1. 1 2025 SCC OnLine AP 1092 8 CMR,J & GTK,J W.A.Nos.224 & 225 of 2026 10. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents submits that in the above reported judgment the Bench did not take into consideration the Rule 33 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Rules, 1989. But the said judgment is not challenged by the State on the said ground before the higher forum. Therefore, it cannot be said that the law laid down in the said judgment does not hold the field. 11. Therefore, these Writ Appeals are allowed. The impugned common order of the learned Single Judge is set-aside. The order of the Tahsildar, in keeping the property in question in the dispute register without giving notice to the writ petitioners, who are the affected parties, is hereby set-aside. The Tahsildar is directed to remove the said land from the dispute register. However, if he is of the opinion that the property is to be kept in the dispute register, he has to issue notice to the writ petitioners and other affected persons and then cause an enquiry and pass an order, according to law, on merits. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY _____________________________ JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA Date: 13.03.2026 MDP