APHC011031032017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3206] FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 44613/2017 Between: 1. G.PRASAD, OCC CULTIVATION R/O. 2-417, SOCIETY COLONY, MADANAPALLI TOWN, CHITTOOR DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, ASSIGNMENTS, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BLDGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DIST. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS JOINT COLLECTOR, CHITTOOR DIST. CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 3. THE SUB COLLECTOR CUM REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MADANAPALLI, CHITTOOR DIST. 4. THE THASILDAR, O/O. . MANDAT REVENUE OFFICE, MADANAPALLI, CHITTOOR 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 toissue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of certiorari call for the records relating to Order vide D Dis (E4)17453/2004 Dt. 11.9.2017 passed by the 2nd respondent and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, against law and violative of principles of natural justice in the interest of justice and to pass 2 RRR, J W.P.No.44613 of 2017 IA NO: 1 OF 2017 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 direct the respondents 2 to 4 not to dispossess the petitioner from the lands in Sy No. 629/2 for an extent of Ac. 3.38 cents situated at Kollabailu Village, of Madnapalli Mandal, Chittoor District by suspending the proceedings of the 3rd Respondent in D Dis /1661/2001 Dt. 1.10.2001 and consequential order of the 2nd respondent passed in D Dis (E4) 7453/2004 Dt. 11.9.2017 pending disposal of WP in the interest of justice and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. T C KRISHNAN Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE (AP) 3 RRR, J W.P.No.44613 of 2017 The Court made the following Order: An extent of Ac.3.38 cents of land in Sy.No.692/2 of Kollabailu Village was originally assigned to Smt. Siddulamma. This assignment of land was subsequently cancelled by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Madanapalle as Smt. Siddulamma was not cultivating the land and had not brought it under cultivation. After such cancellation, the land was given to Sri G. Krishna Murthy and Sri G. Ram Murthy. Later, the land was assigned to Sri G. Ram Murthy, by way of a patta. At that stage, Sri G. Krishna Murthy filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Madanapalle, contending that both Sri G. Ram Murthy and Sri G. Krishna Murthy had cultivated the said land and the assignment should have been made to both of them. However, the land was assigned only in favour of Sri G. Ram Murthy, which is not in accordance with the actual facts on ground. This appeal came to be disposed of on 18.04.1997 with a direction to the Mandal Revenue Officer to assign the land in favour of both Sri G. Ram Murthy and Sri G. Krishna Murthy. 2. Sri G. Ram Murthy, being aggrieved by this order, filed a revision before the Sub-Collector. This revision came to be disposed of on 01.10.2001. In the said order, the Sub-Collector took the view that the land had remained fallow for the last three years and no crops were being raised by either the appellant or the respondent. Further, the land was amenable for allotment of house sites and accordingly, the case of Sri G. Ram Murthy and Sri G. Krishna Murthy were rejected and the land was ordered to be resumed by the 4 RRR, J W.P.No.44613 of 2017 Mandal Revenue Officer, Madanapalle. Against this order of the Sub- Collector, a revision was filed before the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration. This revision was dismissed by an order, dated 11.03.2002, by the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration on the ground that the revision petitioner should have approached the Joint Collector. 3. Sri G. Krishna Murthy and Sri G. Ram Murthy both filed a revision petition before the Joint Collector, Chittoor. This revision petition was disposed of on 25.02.2003, by remanding the matter back to the Sub-Collector. After such remand, the Sub-Collector again passed orders on 13.09.2004, holding that the land in question should be resumed and be used for public purposes, including allotment of the land to eligible beneficiaries for providing house sites. At that stage, the legal heirs of Sri G. Ram Murthy, namely his son and wife, moved a revision before the Joint Collector as Sri G. Ram Murthy had passed away by then. This Revision Petition was dismissed by the Joint Collector on 11.09.2017. Aggrieved by this order of dismissal, the petitioners have approached this Court, by way of the present Writ Petition. 4. The central issue in all these proceedings was the question of whether either Sri G. Ram Murthy or Sri G. Krishna Murthy had cultivated the land, where the land, by virtue of its nature, was not amenable to such cultivation. Sri G. Ram Murthy and Sri Krishna Murthy contended that the land, through-out these proceedings, was under cultivation and that they were 5 RRR, J W.P.No.44613 of 2017 in fact cultivating the said land. This contention was rejected by the Authorities at that stage. 5. In fact, the impugned order of dismissal, issued by the Joint Collector, also went into the same issue and the Joint Collector had held that there was no cultivation of the said land. 6. Sri T.C. Krishnan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would contend that such a view is impermissible, inasmuch as the cultivators had been placing various documents to demonstrate their possession and cultivation over the said land. The learned counsel also contends that the Joint Collector had simply rejected all the material placed by the petitioner before him, without even considering any of the said material. He would contend that no reasons have been set out for not considering this material, except stating that this material had been placed before the other authorities also and nothing new had been placed before him. The learned counsel would contend that such a ground is not sufficient to reject the case of the petitioner and there has been violation of principles of natural justice as the submissions of the petitioner had not been considered or rejected with reasons. 7. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, on the other hand, would contend that the petitioners had been unable to demonstrate their cultivation over the said land and had been placing the same documents at every stage, despite such documents being rejected at every stage. The learned Assistant Government Pleader also pointed out to 6 RRR, J W.P.No.44613 of 2017 the observation of the Joint Collector that the matter had been heard two-to- three times by his predecessors and that orders were being passed after considering the material on record. The learned Assistant Government Pleader would contend that the rejection of the documents, produced by the petitioner, was in accordance with law and that such documents did not demonstrate any possession or cultivation over the said land. 8. A perusal of the impugned order would show that the Joint Collector had rejected the material placed before him, on the single ground that the said material had already been rejected by the Authorities earlier. The said reason given by the Joint Collector does not appear to be in accordance with law. It was incumbent upon the Joint Collector to consider the documents on their merits and pass orders of rejection or otherwise, by giving reasons. 9. In the circumstances, this Writ Petition is disposed of, setting aside the impugned order, dated 11.09.2017, passed by the Joint Collector, and the matter is remanded back to the Joint Collector for ascertaining as to whether the petitioners herein and their predecessors were cultivating the said land and whether such cultivation was going on earlier. For this purpose, the Joint Collector, apart from looking into the documents produced by the petitioners, would also be entitled to ascertain, from any other source, about the cultivation of land, by the petitioner. 7 RRR, J W.P.No.44613 of 2017 10. Status quo, existing as on today, over the said land shall be maintained until the Joint Collector takes a decision in the matter. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J 20.02.2026 MJA 8 RRR, J W.P.No.44613 of 2017 104 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 44613/2017 20.02.2026 MJA