APHC010281652022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3458] TUESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 16671 OF 2022 Between: 1. DOGGA RAMAKRISHNA, S/O MALLU NAIDU, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCC RETIRED EMPLOYEE, R/O PODUGUPALEM VILLAGE, H/O A.KODURU, K.KOTAPADU MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 2. DOGGA SATYAM, S/O MALLU NAIDU, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, OCC AGRUCULTURE, R/O PODUGUPALEM VILLAGE, H/O A.KODURU, K.KOTAPADU MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 3. DOGGA PAIDAM NAIDU, S/O MALLU NAIDU, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O PODUGUPALEM VILLAGE, H/O A.KODURU, K.KOTAPADU MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 4. DOGGA SRI RAMA MURTHY, S/O MALLU NAIDU, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCC SCHOOL TEACHER, R/O PODUGUPALEM VILLAGE, H/O A.KODURU, K.KOTAPADU MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 5. DOGGA CHANDRA SEKHARA RAO, S/O YERUKULU @ PAIDI THALLI, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCC AGRUCULTURE, R/O PODUGUPALEM VILLAGE, H/O A.KODURU, K.KOTAPADU MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 6. DOGGA LAKSHMI THALLI, W/O LATE NARAYANA MURTHY, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, OCC HOUSE WIFE, R/O PODUGUPALEM VILLAGE, H/O A.KODURU, K.KOTAPADU MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) 2 AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPT., SECRETARIATE BUILDING, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI. 2. THE COLLECTOR, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ANAKAPALLI DIVISION, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, K.KOTAPADU MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM 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 topleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to diclare action of the 4th Respondent in issueing the Endorsment vide Rc.No.283/2021/C.S/ dt.31-08-2021 by directing the petitioners not to enchroach the land an extent of Ac.01-68 cents in Sy.No.214-1 which is a prevate land known as Peetala Banda is illegal, arbitrary, capricious and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300A of Constitution of India and also contrary to Sub Sec.3 of Sec.3 of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971. Consequently direct the 4th Respondent to enter the petitioners names in the Revenue Records as it is prevate land which is devolued from their ancisters by setting aside the Impugned Endorsment and to pass 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 pleased to Suspend the Impugned Endorsment vide R.C.No.283/2021/S.C/ dt.31-08- 2021 pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. N A RAMACHANDRA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 3 The Court made the following order: Heard Sri N.A.Ramachandra Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents. 2. Challenging the action of the 4th respondent in issuing the endorsement vide Rc.No.283/2021/C.S dated 31.08.2021 directing the petitioners not to encroach on the land to the extent of Ac.1.68 cents in Sy.No.214-1, which is a private land known as “Peetala Banda”, the instant writ petition is filed. 3. The petitioners contend that they are the absolute owners and possessors of the land to the extent of Ac.3.17 cents in old Sy.No.162/2 (New Sy.No.214/A, B, C, D, E and F) and an extent of Ac.1.97 cents popularly known as Peetala Banda in old Sy.No.162/1 (New Sy.No.214-1) totally admeasuring to an extent of Ac.5.17 cents of Podugupalem Village, K.Kotapadu Mandal Visakhapatnam District. 4. It is contended that the subject land is an ancestral property of the petitioners. After the demise of the petitioners’ father, the petitioners and other family members intended to partition the property among themselves and, therefore, verified the revenue records. On such verification, it came to their knowledge that the subject property had not been mutated in the revenue records. Thus, they have approached the 4th respondent, as the classification of the subject land was shown as “Cheruve Poramboke”. And made an 4 application before the 4th respondent for a change of classification from Cheruve Poramboke. 5. The petitioners contend that the subject land was never Cheruvu Poramboke and has always been private patta land. Pursuant to the said application, the impugned proceedings were passed by the 4th respondent, stating that the subject land is shown in the revenue records as Cheruve Poramboke and that appropriate action would be taken against the petitioners for encroaching on land belonging to the Government. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners contend that the petitioners have approached this Court seeking mutation and correction of entries in the revenue records. However, the impugned proceedings were passed without affording the petitioners any opportunity of hearing. It is further contended that the classification of the land as Cheruve Poramboke is not proper or sustainable. 7. Having regard to the fact that the averment of the petitioners that their forefathers purchased the property and in pursuance of the said sale document the petitioners and their family members have been in possession and occupation of the land, any proceedings that are to be issued must be strictly in accordance with law and under the relevant provisions of the Act. A perusal of the impugned proceedings would reflect that no notice was ever issued to the petitioners before concluding that the subject property is Government land. 5 8. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that any orders passed by the respondents should be in accordance with the procedure contemplated under the Act. Accordingly, the impugned proceedings dated 31.08.2021 are set aside and the matter is remanded to the 4th respondent for passing appropriate orders, in accordance with law, after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. Till the passing of such orders, the respondents shall not dispossess the petitioners from the subject property. 9. With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA Date: 10.02.2026 BSK 6 11 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 16671 OF 2022 Date: 10.02.2026 BSK