APHC010614962025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3558] TUESDAY,THE TWENTIETH 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: 1209/2025 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent to allow the Writ Appeal by setting aside the order dated 23-07-2025, passed by the learned single judge in WP.No. 18777 of 2025 and pass Between: 1. BANDI MODINSAA, S/O BANDI HUSSAIN SAHEB, AGE ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE COOLIE, R/O H.NO.1- 1-11-2, DISTRICT. PATTIKONDA VILLAGE AND MANDAL, KURNOOL ...APPELLANT AND 1. BOYA SRIRAMULU, S/O BOYA LAKSHMANNA, AGE ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O D.NO.9-99, ALUR VILLAGE, MOLAGAVALLI, KURNOOL DISTRICT - 518395. 2. BOYA RANGASWAMY, S/O BOYA LAKSHMANNA, AGE ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O D. NO. 1-164, CHINAHULDILI, CHINNA HULTHI, KURNOOL DISTRICT - 518380. 3. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KURNOOL DISTRICT, KURNOOL. 5. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PATTIKONDA REVENUE DIVISION, PATTIKONDA, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 2 CMR,J & GTK,J W.A.No.1209 of 2025 6. THE TAHSILDAR, PATTIKONDA MANDAL, PATTIKONDA, KURNOOL DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 pleased to dispense with the filing of certified copy of order dated 23-07-2025 in WP.No.18777 of 2025, and pass IA NO: 2 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 pleased to suspend the operation of the order dated 23-07-2025, passed in WP.No.18777 of 2025, pending disposal of Writ Appeal and pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. U RAMANJANEYULU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. SAI GANGADHAR CHAMARTY 2. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: 3 CMR,J & GTK,J W.A.No.1209 of 2025 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy) This Writ Appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 23.07.2025, passed in Writ Petition No.18777 of 2025, whereby the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage, directing the respondent No.4 not to interfere with the possession of the petitioners in respect of the subject land without following due process of law, while dispensing with notice to respondent No.5, who is the appellant herein. 2. Heard Sri K.V.Raghuveer, learned counsel representing Sri U.Ramanjaneyulu, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri K.V.M.Chiranjeevi, learned counsel representing Sri Sai Gangadhar Chamarty, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, appearing for respondent Nos.3 to 6. 3. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein are the writ petitioners in W.P.No.18777 of 2025. They have filed the writ petition for a Mandamus declaring the action of respondents therein in making efforts to dispossess the petitioners from the land in an extent of Ac.1.35 cents in Survey No.667 of Chinnahulthi Village in Kurnool district, as illegal and arbitrary and consequentially sought direction to the official respondents therein not to dispossess the petitioners from the land without following due process of law. 4. The learned Single Judge dispensed with notice to respondent No.5 in the writ petition, who is the appellant herein, on the ground that no adverse order affecting his right or interest is being passed against him. 5. While dispensing with notice to the appellant herein, who is respondent No.5 in the writ petition, the learned Single Judge has disposed of the said writ petition at the admission stage with the consent of both the counsels, directing the respondent No.4 therein not to interfere with the possession of the petitioners in respect of the subject land without following due process of law. 4 CMR,J & GTK,J W.A.No.1209 of 2025 6. In paragraph No.5 of the impugned order of the learned Single Judge, it is stated that the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, on instructions, did not dispute the fact that the writ petitioners are in possession of the subject land and that he would submit that in pursuance to the order dated 05.02.2024 passed in W.P.No.2775 of 2024, respondent No.5, who is the appellant herein, applied for mutation of his name and the same was rejected by respondent No.4 in the writ petition. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contends that the appellant/respondent No.5 never applied for mutation of his name and the same was never rejected by respondent No.4 as represented before the learned Single Judge, which was made as basis for passing the impugned order. He further vehemently contends that respondent No.5/appellant, in fact, has been in possession of the subject land and the said fact was suppressed before the learned Single Judge, which led the learned Single Judge to pass the impugned order. He would finally contend that as no notice was ordered to him and notice to him was dispensed with, he had no opportunity to place his case before the learned Single Judge and the impugned order was passed in utter violation of principles of natural justice. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant has also produced a copy of the proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Pattikonda, in proof of his possession of the land in question. 9. Therefore, in the said facts and circumstances of the case, as no notice was issued to the appellant herein, who is the respondent No.5 in the writ petition, and as the impugned order was passed without hearing him, and as the appellant asserts that he is in possession of the land in question, we are of the considered view that the impugned order is to be set aside and the matter is to be remanded to the learned Single Judge to issue notice to the appellant/respondent No.5 and hear the writ petition afresh and then decide the writ petition on merits according to law. 5 CMR,J & GTK,J W.A.No.1209 of 2025 10. We are making it clear that we are not deciding anything on the merits of the case and it is entirely left to the discretion of the learned Single Judge to decide the matter on merits after hearing both the parties. 11. Therefore, the Writ Appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 23.07.2025 passed in W.P.No.18777 of 2025 is hereby set aside. The writ petition is remanded to the learned Single Judge to order notice to respondent No.5/appellant and to hear the writ petition afresh and to decide the same on merits according to law. There shall be no order as to costs. 12. As a sequel, Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, J ________________________ TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA, J Date : 20-01-2026 BMS