APHC010659402025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3524] TUESDAY,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT APPEAL NO: 1335/2025 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent above named Appellants beg to present this Memorandum of Writ Appeal against the Judgment passed in W.P No. 12364 of 2022, dated 25-03-2025 passed by the Honble Single Judge of this Honble Court, for the following grounds among other Between: 1. P CHINNA VENKATESWARA RAO, S/O.LATE NARASIMHAM, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, OCC FISHERMAN, R/O.GULLALAMODA, H/O.ETIMOGA, NAGAYALANKA MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 2 2. .P.SWARAJYAM, W/O. P.CHINNA VENKATESWARA RAO AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCC FISHERMAN, R/O.GULLALAMODA, H/O.ETIMOGA, NAGAYALANKA MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. S 3. P.NANIBABU, .S/O P.SAMBASIVA RAO, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, OCC FISHERMAN, R/ O.GULLALAMODA, H/ O. ETIMOGA, NAGAYALANKA MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 4. P.VENKATESWARAMMA, W/O.P.NANIBABU, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, OCC FISHERMAN, R/O.GULLALAMODA, H/O.ETIMOGA, NAGAYALANKA MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 5 5. .P.VEERARAGHAVAIAH, S/O.P.YESUBABU R/O.GULLALAMODA, H/O.ETIMOGA, NAGAYALANKA MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 6. 6. P.MERI, W/O.P.VEERARAGHAVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCC FISHERMAN, R/O.GULLALAMODA, H/O.ETIMOGA, NAGAYALANKA MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT ...APPELLANT(S) AND 2 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP.BY ITS PRINICIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, A.P SECETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI AMARVATHI,GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KRISHNA DISTRICT, MACHILIPATNAM. 3. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, AVANIGADDA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 4. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. LEO LAW ASSOCIATES LLP Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari) Heard Sri Venkateswarlu Gadipudi, learned counsel for the writ appellants and Ms. Kotharu Vijayeswari, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing for the respondents. 2. This writ appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 25.03.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.12364 of 2022. 3. The writ petition was filed by the writ appellants, the same was dismissed. 4. In the writ petition, the order dated 15.03.2022 was under challenge. The order was passed by the Collector and District Magistrate, Krishna, in proceedings dated 15.03.2022, whereby, the petitioners’ representation dated 02.02.2022 was rejected. The petitioner previously filed W.P.No.15756 of 2018 before this Court for direction to the respondents to pay compensation to the 3 petitioner, declaring their action in not paying compensation as illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory. During the pendency of the said writ petition, the petitioners submitted representation dated 20.02.2021. The writ petition No.15756 of 2018 was disposed of, directing the respondents therein to dispose of the representation dated 20.02.2021 in accordance with law within the specified time and pursuant to the said direction, the representation of the petitioners was considered and after affording opportunity, the same was rejected by the order dated 15.03.2022, against which W.P.No.12364 of 2022 was filed and dismissed. 5. The plea of the petitioners for compensation was rejected on the ground that the petitioners could not produce documentary evidence to show that they were in possession of the land admeasuring an extent of Ac.15.00 cents in Sy.No.636 of Gullalamoda, H/o. Etimoga, Nagayalanka Mandal, Krishna District. No documentary proof was filed by the petitioners before the authority/District Collector, before which they also gave statement on 14.02.2022 (as recorded in the order itself) that they did not have documentary evidence, except tax receipts in the year 1990 and 1994. 6. In the writ petition, the 4th respondent had filed counter affidavit taking the plea that the petitioners’ names were not entered as encroachers either in the first list containing 112 names nor in the final list containing 157 names of the beneficiaries. Consequently, the petitioners' names not being in the list of beneficiaries and they also having failed to produce any documentary evidence with respect to their possession may be as encroachers or in other 4 capacity, they were held not to be in possession and not entitled to any compensation. 7. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioners filed any representation raising any grievance for non-inclusion of their names either in the first list or in the final list in which the petitioners’ names did not find figure. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants/writ petitioners submits that various representations were filed, but the action was not taken to include the name of the writ petitioners, however, the record shows that, except for the representation dated 20.02.2021, copy of any other representation has not been brought on record. Even the representation dated 20.02.2021 was filed during the pendency of the W.P.No.15756 of 2018. 9. The representation dated 20.02.2021 (annexed at page Nos.38-39) mentions that ‘we have repeatedly submitted to the revenue authorities on this matter several times along with land discipline receipts and petitions to inform them that the lands are in our possession’, but even the date of those alleged representations has not been disclosed. Any copy of the previous representation has not been annexed. The particulars of the cist receipts has also not been given. The petitioners have simply mentioned some previous representations along with cist receipts. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the copies of cist receipts have been filed. However, a perusal of those cist receipts shows ‘fasli years 1401 and 1402’. One of those cist receipts, at page No.44 mentions ‘registered occupant has not paid’, it is 5 dated 17.03.1994. Another cist receipt mentions ‘registered occupant has not paid’, it is dated 27.05.1994 for the fasli year 1402. 10. The final list was prepared on 15.03.2018, we are of the view that even if those two cist receipts are taken into consideration, the writ petitioners should have placed such documents at the time of preparation of the final list of the beneficiaries and even if it be taken that those were produced but still the final list of beneficiaries was prepared, not including the names of the writ petitions, they ought to have questioned the same in appropriate proceedings before the appropriate authority. Further, mere two cist receipts of the year 1990 and 1994 cannot be the conclusive proof that on the date when the final list was prepared, the petitioners were in possession. However, in any case, finding on possession is a finding of fact. It is against the writ petitioners. The Court, in exercise of the writ jurisdiction, rightly dismissed the writ petition. 11. We do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. The appeal is dismissed. 12. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all pending applications shall stand closed. ___________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI, J _____________________________ MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM, J GVK 6 127 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM W.A. No.1335 of 2025 Dt. 27.01.2026 GVK