APHC010394252018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3209] MONDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA WRIT PETITION NO: 18276/2018 Between: 1. REDDY THAVUDU, S/O. LATE BUTCHULU, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, CULTIVATION, R/ AT CHINNA JONNAVALASA VILLAGE, AMADALAVALASA MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDING, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, ANDHRA PRADESH 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SRIKAKULAM, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, SRIKAKULAM, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT 4. THE TAHSILDAR, AMADALAVALASA MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 5. REDDY RAJULU, S/O. LATE APPANNA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, CULTIVATION, R/AT CHINNA JONNAVALASA VILLAGE, AMADALAVALASA MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. ARAVALA RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE (AP) 2. TADDI NAGESWARA RAO The Court made the following: 3 Order: The present writ petition is filed seeking to declare the notice dated 03.04.2018 in R.C. No.103/2018B, issued by the 4th respondent, as illegal, contrary to law, etc., and for consequential directions. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions with reference to the various averments made in the writ petition and contended that the notice issued by the 4th respondent is without jurisdiction and is not sustainable in law, in view of the petitioner’s settled legal possession. However, the said submissions need not be examined in detail. Suffice it to state that, at the time of directing notice before admission on 06.06.2018, the learned Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and for the State of Andhra Pradesh passed the following order: “There shall be interim stay of enquiry pursuant to the notice impugned in the writ petition. The 5th respondent, if so advised and is aggrieved by the order of 4th respondent in issuing pattadar passbook/title deed, the 5th respondent can work out the remedies against such grant of pattadar passbook either by filing appeal or revision as is advised.” 3. The learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent, referring to the said order, submits that the 5th respondent filed a suit vide O.S. No.104 of 2025 in respect of part of the plaint schedule property, apart from other properties situated in different survey numbers, against the writ petitioner herein, before the Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amadalavalasa, 4 and that the said suit is pending. He has also placed a copy of the plaint in the said suit for the perusal of this Court. 4. In the light of the subsequent events, more particularly filing of the suit pursuant to the observations made in the order, dated 06.06.2018, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition while holding that the notice dated 03.04.2018 is not tenable. 5. Be that as it may, as the 5th respondent has filed a suit against the writ petitioner herein, the parties are at liberty to raise all their contentions in support of their respective cases, and the orders passed in the present writ petition shall not have any bearing on the respective claims. 6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA 05.01.2026 PNS