APHC010011762018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH TUESDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 694 OF Between: 1. JANAVATH VIJAYALAKSHMI, JANAVATH VIJAYALAKSHMI @ VIJAYALAKSHMI BAI, W/O. NAGESWARA RAO NAIK, 38 YEARS, 2. R.MADHAVI ( DIED) AS PER L.RS P3 TO P5, W/O. RAMUDU, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, 3. RAGE RAMUDU, S/O SANKARAIAH,, BHANUMUKKALA VILLAGE, PAMULAPADU MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 4. RAGE JAYANTHI, D/O RAGE RAMUDU,, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O BHANUMUKKALA VILLAGE, PAMULAPADU MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 5. RAGE KUMARI, D/O RAGE RAMUDU,, AGED ABOUT BHANUMUKKALA VILLAGE, PAMULAPADU MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. PETITIONER NOS. 3 TO 5 ARE BROUGHT ON RECORD AS L.RS OF THE DECEASED 2ND PETITIONER AS PER THE COURT'S ORDER DT.20.01.2026 IN I.A.NO.01 OF 2024. 1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 694 OF 2018 JANAVATH VIJAYALAKSHMI, JANAVATH VIJAYALAKSHMI @ VIJAYALAKSHMI BAI, W/O. NAGESWARA RAO NAIK, 38 YEARS, R.MADHAVI ( DIED) AS PER L.RS P3 TO P5, W/O. RAMUDU, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RAGE RAMUDU, S/O SANKARAIAH,, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/O BHANUMUKKALA VILLAGE, PAMULAPADU MANDAL, KURNOOL RAGE JAYANTHI, D/O RAGE RAMUDU,, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O BHANUMUKKALA VILLAGE, PAMULAPADU MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. RAGE KUMARI, D/O RAGE RAMUDU,, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/O BHANUMUKKALA VILLAGE, PAMULAPADU MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. PETITIONER NOS. 3 TO 5 ARE BROUGHT ON RECORD AS L.RS OF THE DECEASED 2ND PETITIONER AS PER THE COURT'S ORDER DT.20.01.2026 IN I.A.NO.01 OF 2024. ...PETITIONER(S) AND ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3333] TUESDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JUNE THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA JANAVATH VIJAYALAKSHMI, JANAVATH VIJAYALAKSHMI @ VIJAYALAKSHMI BAI, W/O. NAGESWARA RAO NAIK, 38 YEARS, R.MADHAVI ( DIED) AS PER L.RS P3 TO P5, W/O. RAMUDU, AGED AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/O BHANUMUKKALA VILLAGE, PAMULAPADU MANDAL, KURNOOL RAGE JAYANTHI, D/O RAGE RAMUDU,, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O BHANUMUKKALA VILLAGE, PAMULAPADU MANDAL, 26 YEARS, R/O BHANUMUKKALA VILLAGE, PAMULAPADU MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. PETITIONER NOS. 3 TO 5 ARE BROUGHT ON RECORD AS L.RS OF THE DECEASED 2ND PETITIONER AS PER THE COURT'S ORDER DT.20.01.2026 IN I.A.NO.01 OF 2024. ...PETITIONER(S) ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT 2 2. THE JOINT COLLECTOR AND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, , KURNOOL DISTRICT. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, , KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHSILDAR PAMULAPADU MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 5. MR D SUDHAKAR, S/O LATE SIKHARNANI, 60 YRS., RETD. EMPLOYEE R/O. RESIDENCY COLONY, FLAT NO. 302, BALAJINAGAR, KURNOOL 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 to issue an appropriate writ or direction, more in the nature of Mandamus declaring the impugned orders of the 2nd respondent Joint Collector in cancelling the D Form pattas No.s, R.Dis.No.350/2000, dated 9.12.2000 and R.Dis. No. 357/2000, dated 9.12.2000 respectively granted to the petitioners vide Re. No. E2 / 2 / 2017, dated 21.10.2017 by exercising the revisional powers under BSO 15 Para 18, even though such power is not available in the instant case either under law or on facts, as being illegal, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same, and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2018 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 to Suspend the operation of the impugned orders of the 2nd respondent in Rc. No. E2/2/2017, dated 2 1.10.2017, pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2018 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 to vacate the interim orders in WP.No.694/2018,dated. 09.02.2018 the above writ petition and to pass IA NO: 3 OF 2018 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 to 3 Vacate the order passed in WP No.6947of 2018, dated 09.02.2018 and dismiss the writ petition with costs and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 may be pleased to permit the petitioners 1) Rage Ramudu 2) Rage Jayanthi 3) Rage Kumari to come on record as a petitioners 3 to 5 L.Rs of the deceased 2nd petitioner i.e., R.Madhavi in W.P.No. 694 of 2018 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. K RATHANGA PANI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. A JAGAN 2. GP FOR REVENUE (AP) The Court made the following: 4 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 694 OF 2018 ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed questioning the impugned orders of the Respondent No.2/ Joint Collector in cancelling the D-Form pattas Nos, R.Dis.No.350/2000, dated 09.12.2000 and R.Dis. No. 357/2000, dated 09.12.2000 respectively granted to the Petitioners vide Re.No. E2/2/2017, dated 21.10.2017 by exercising the revisional powers under BSO 15 Para 18, even though such power is not available in the instant case either under law or on facts, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The Petitioners are landless poor persons belonging to Weaker Sections. As such, they were granted assignment of land by the Respondent No.4 to an extent of Ac. 2.75 cents each in Sy.No. 37/Y1 of Bhanumukkala Village, vide D.Form Pattas in R.Dis.No.350/2000, dated 09.12.2000 and R.Dis.No.357/2000, dated 09.12.2000 respectively. At the time of assignment, the land was barren with boulders and hill locks, whereas the Petitioners made it cultivable by spending huge amounts for cultivation by raising standing crop like Maize, Redgram, Mango and Sapota trees. After assignment, the names of the Petitioners were mutated in all the revenue records and they were also granted Pattadar Pass Books and Title Deeds. 3. While the matter stood thus, the Respondent No.5, who is resident of Kurnool Town came to the village of the Petitioners, started interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment over the subject land under the 5 guise that his father late Sikhamani was assigned the said land somewhere in the year 1960’s without showing any patta if any granted. As such, the Petitioners filed a suit in O.S.No.17 of 2017 and O.S.No.18 of 2017 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Atmakur respectively for permanent injunction and obtained ad-interim injunction in their favour vide order dated 15.02.2017. Since then, the Petitioners have been in possession and enjoyment over the subject land. Basing on a Petition filed by the Respondent No.5, the Respondent No.2, treating the said Petition as a Revision under BSO 15, Para 18 allowed the same vide impugned order in Rc.E2/2/2017, dated 21.10.2017 cancelling the pattas granted in favour of the Petitioners on flimsy grounds that procedure was not followed while granting assignment to the Petitioners. Aggrieved by which, the present Writ Petition came to be filed. 4. When the matter is came up for admission on 09.02.2018, this Court passed the interim order that “In the meanwhile, there shall be interim suspension of the impugned order until further orders, as the said order was passed after 17 years of the assignment”. 5. The Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 have filed Counter-Affidavit respectively duly admitting the facts as stated by the Petitioners and contended that the unofficial Respondent at the first instance has given representation regarding the erroneous irregular assignment of his father’s land in Sy.No. 437-Y/1 an extent of Ac. 5.00 cents of Bhanumukkala Village, Pamulapadu Mandal in favour of the Petitioners herein in the year 2000 and the matter got enquired by the Respondent No.4. It is further contended that 6 one D. Sikamani, Ex-Service man was issued D-Patta over the government land to an extent of Ac. 5.00 cents in Sy.No. 437 Y/1 of Bhanumukka Village by the then Tahsildar on 30.06.1968. As per old ROR form No.1 prepared under the provisions of Act. 26/1971 (old ROR Act) and Rules, the name of D. Shikamani has been mutated both in Pattadar and occupant columns against Sy.No.437 Y/1 for total extent of Ac. 5.00 cents and with regard to Adangal entries during fasli 1402 the name of pattadars was shown as ‘Shikamani and occupant as Gaddam Samanna. From Fasli 1409 to 1412, 1416 to 122, both columns pattadar and occupant name is recorded as D. Sudhakar S/o Sikamani. The original assignee did not violate the conditions of D.Patta. The Respondent No.5 is the son of original assignee. The original assignee died on 09.12.1971 and his mother also died on 01.08.2005 leaving behind the Respondent No.5 and his two sisters. As the Respondent No.5 has been working in some other place, his mother was cultivating the aforesaid land through their relative Gaddam Samanna. It is further stated that the Second Assignment was made in favour of the Petitioner on 09.12.2000 without cancelling the original patta, granted in favour of father of the Respondent No.5. Accordingly, the Respondent No.4 has submitted a detailed report to the Respondent No.3 on 10.02.2017. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kurnool after further enquiry has submitted his report to the Joint Collector, Kurnool recommending for cancellation of D-Pattas of the Petitioners under B.S.O 15 (18) and accordingly the Joint Collector passed the impugned orders, 7 cancelling the Pattas granted in favour of the Petitioners and requested to dismiss the Writ Petition. 6. The Respondent No.5 filed Counter-Affidavit to substantiate his case, but no documents filed with regard to the grant of patta in favour of the late father of the Respondent No.5 in the year 1968 as stated by the Respondent No.4. 7. Perused the impugned order passed by the Respondent No.2, dated 21.10.2017. Even before Respondent No.2, it was the case of the Petitioner that the Patta was granted in favour of both the Petitioners by the Respondent No.4 to an extent of Ac. 2.75 cents each in Sy.No. 37/Y1 of Bhanumukkala Village, vide D.Form Pattas in R.Dis.No.350/2000, dated 09.12.2000 and R.Dis.No.357/2000, dated 09.12.2000 respectively and since then they have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment over the subject land. As the Respondent No.5, who is resident of Kurnool Town have been interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment over the subject land of the Petitioners, they were constrained to file O.S.No.17 of 2017 and O.S.No.18 of 2017 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Atmakur respectively seeking permanent injunction and obtained ad-interim injunction in favour of the Petitioners herein during pendency of the suits. However, basing upon a petition made by the Respondent No.5, the Respondent No.2 have passed the present impugned orders under BSO 15, Para 18 duly cancelling the Pattas granted in favour of the Petitioners. Though, the Petitioners had specifically raised an objection before the Respondent No.2. However, there is no documentary evidence to 8 establish that the Petitioner’s deceased father was originally granted D-Form Patta in the year 1968 under Ex-Serviceman Quota, since then he has been in possession and enjoyment over the subject land. 8. It can also be observed that not even single paper has been filed either by the Respondent No.5 or Respondent No.4 before this Court or before the Respondent No.2 to establish original patta granted in favour of later father of Respondent No.5 under Ex-Serviceman Quota and they have been in possession of the subject land. 9. It can also be observed that Respondent No.5 has not furnished copy of DKT patta granted in favour of his father way back in the year 1968. On the other hand, it is also the specific case of the Petitioner that even before Respondent No.2 that Respondent No.5 except making a bald statement that patta was granted in favour of his father in the year 1968, has not filed any copy of the patta to prove his case. In spite of the said objection raised by the Petitioner, Respondent No.2 even without verifying the records, has simply cancelled the patta granted in favour of the Petitioner, vide order, dated 21.10.2017. 10. In “P.Anasuyamma Vs. The Commissioner of Land Revenue, Government of A.P., Hyderabad1” the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad while dealing with the issue as to within what time, the cancellation of assignment shall be exercised, has held as under: 1 1994 (2) ALT 329 9 “Revisional Jurisdiction of Collector under Para 18 (1) for cancellation of assignment shall be exercised only within three years from the date of order passed even in the case of misrepresentation or fraud in obtaining assignment by an individual.” 11. Admittedly, in the present case, pattas were granted to the petitioners herein in the year 2000 and the cancellation proceedings were issued in the year 2017, which is beyond 3 years and as the cancellation proceedings were issued without any documentary evidence, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. 12. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed, setting aside the impugned proceedings vide Rc.E2/2/2017 dated 21.10.2017 issued by Respondent No.2. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 23.06.2026 KK