APHC010451152018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE 21st DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 21454 OF 2018 Between: 1. Vippala Rambabu Died, S/o Swamy Naidu, Aged about 65 years, R/o Konkasingi Village, Golugonda Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 2. Kommina Pydi Raju, S/o Appanna, Aged about 65 years, R/o Konkasingi Village, Golugonda Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 3. Kuramdas Chinanookaiah @ Nooka Raju (died) per LR, Kuramdas Appala Naidu, aged about 35 years, R/o AL-Puram, Golugonda Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 4. Sabbavarapu Ramulu Died, S/o Pydiyya, Aged about 65 years, R/o AL- Puram, Golugonda Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 5. Gudapati Demudu (died) per LR, Settti Kannaya Naidu, S/o Appala Swamy, Aged about 65 years. 6. Lokarapu Talupulu, S/o , Aged about 70 years, R/o AL-Puram, Golugonda Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 7. Molli Seetaramaya, S/o Tamaiah, Aged about 69 years, R/o AL-Puram, Golugonda Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 8. Vippala Samba Murthy,, S/o Vippala Atchirajulu, Hindu, aged about 46 years, R/o Konkasingi, Golugonda Mandalam, Visakhapatnam District. 2 VS,J W.P.No.21454 of 2018 9. Sabbavarapu Sivarama Krishna,, S/o Late Sabbavarapu Ramulu, Hindu, aged about 51 years, R/o Nathavaram Village and Mandal, Anakapalli District. 10. Sabbavarapu Rajulamma,, W/o Late Sabbavarapu Ramulu, R/o AL Puram, Golugonda Mandal, Visakhapatnam District Petitioner No.8 and 9 to 10 are brought on record as per LRs of deceased 1st and 4th Petitioners as per Courts Order dt.29.01.2026 in I.A.Nos.1 of 2021 and 1 of 2023 respectively ...Petitioners AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue Department, represented by its Principal Secretary Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. The Land Reforms TribunalcumRevenue Divisional Officer, Narsipatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 3. The Tahsildar, Golugonda, Visakhapatnam District. 4. The Station House Officer, Kd-Peta Police Station, Golugonda Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. ...Respondents 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 toto issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring action of the 3rd respondent in not incorporating the petitioners names in the revenue records as directed by the 2nd respondent vide Proceedings LCC No.574/75/NPM, dated 4.5.2017 is highly illegal, arbitrary and against Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2018 3 VS,J W.P.No.21454 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 direct the 3rd respondent to incorporate the petitioners names in the revenue records forthwith for the land in Sy.No.16 and 38/2 with an extent of Ac.15.20 cents situated at KD-Peta Village, Golugonda Mandal, Visakhapatnam District in consonance with the Proceedings LCC No.574/75/NPM, dated 4.5.2017 on the file of the 2nd respondent pending disposal of 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 receive the affidavit in the interest of justice and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2021 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 vacate the interim orders granted on 18-03-2020 in WP.No.6257/2020 and dismiss the writ petition and pass such other order IA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 bring the Petitioners on record as petitioners 8 and 9 in the above writ petition and in all other miscellaneous applications as being legal representative of the deceased 4th writ petitioner/ Sabbavarapu Ramulu in the intent of justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioners: P RAJASEKHAR Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME (AP) Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE (AP) The Court made the following 4 VS,J W.P.No.21454 of 2018 ORDER: The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “… to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring action of the 3rd respondent in not incorporating the petitioners names in the revenue records as directed by the 2nd respondent vide Proceedings LCC No.574/75/NPM, dated 4.5.2017 is highly illegal, arbitrary and against Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India ….” 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: a) One Chinthala Atchiyya Naidu, S/o. Swamy Naidu, of A.L. Puram Village, Golugonda Mandal, filed a declaration under Section 8 of the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 before the Primary Tribunal-cum-Additional Revenue Divisional Officer (Land Reforms), Narsipatnam. The Primary Tribunal declared that the declarant was holding excess land to an extent of Ac.31.00 cents of H-Class dry land. Consequently, possession of the excess land was taken from the declarant and the same was assigned to thirty (30) beneficiaries. b) While so, the petitioners, claiming to be tenants under the declarant, represented before the Primary Tribunal stating that they were cultivating tenants in possession and enjoyment of the subject lands and were paying lease rent to the declarant every year. They requested the Primary Tribunal to protect their rights under the tenancy act and to exclude the lands in their 5 VS,J W.P.No.21454 of 2018 possession and enjoyment from the land declared as surplus. The said request was rejected by the Primary Tribunal and the said order was confirmed by the Appellate Tribunal vide judgment dated 06.01.2006. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners preferred C.R.P.No.1951 of 2006 before this Court. By order dated 08.07.2010, this Court set aside the orders of the Primary Tribunal as well as the Appellate Tribunal and remanded the matter to the Primary Tribunal for fresh consideration. c) Pursuant thereto, the 2nd respondent, after considering the entire material on record and the report submitted by the 3rd respondent, held that the petitioners were in possession and enjoyment of the subject lands and further cancelled the assignments made in favour of the thirty (30) beneficiaries on the ground that they had never been in cultivation or enjoyment of the lands since the date of assignment, vide proceedings dated 04.05.2017. While cancelling the assignments, the 2nd respondent directed the 3rd respondent to carry out necessary changes in the revenue records by incorporating the names of the petitioners. Though the petitioners requested implementation of the said proceedings, no action was taken. On the other hand, when the assignees allegedly interfered with their possession without any right or title over the subject lands, the petitioners were constrained to file the present Writ Petition seeking implementation of the proceedings dated 04.05.2017. 6 VS,J W.P.No.21454 of 2018 3. Respondent No.2 has filed a counter-affidavit admitting the facts stated by the petitioners. However, it is stated as follows: a) The alleged proceedings dated 04.05.2017 were never issued or communicated through the office of the 2nd respondent and that the said proceedings appear to have been created fraudulently outside the office with the knowledge of the petitioners. It is further stated that the Government, vide G.O.Rt.No.1366, General Administration Department, dated 20.06.2017, constituted a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to conduct an enquiry into tampering of land records and other land-related matters in Visakhapatnam District and, thereafter, vide G.O.Rt.No.1562, dated 15.07.2017, expanded the scope of investigation by directing the SIT to investigate, in addition to the earlier areas, all cases relating to assignments, land grabbing and encroachments. It is stated that the assignees availed the opportunity by filing complaints before the Revenue authorities regarding non-redressal of their grievance with respect to the subject land. b) It is further stated that the Tahsildar, Golugonda, conducted a field enquiry on the petition filed by the assignees before the Special Investigation Team, Visakhapatnam, in the presence of both the assignees and the petitioners, with reference to the office records, identified the persons who were in possession on the ground, and submitted a detailed report to the Special Investigation Team, Visakhapatnam, vide Rc.No.1168/2017, dated 20.11.2017. It is also stated that, at the time of the enquiry, the petitioners did 7 VS,J W.P.No.21454 of 2018 not disclose the alleged order dated 04.05.2017. The Tahsildar, Golugonda, specifically stated in the said report that the matter was pending before the Primary Tribunal-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Narsipatnam. c) It is further alleged that, on verification of the alleged proceedings dated 04.05.2017 produced by the petitioners, it was noticed that the official seal of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Narsipatnam, was affixed above the signature of the Revenue Divisional Officer. It is stated that the said seal is not clearly visible on the copy of the proceedings and that, as per the office practice, the official seal is always affixed on the left side of the signature and not above it. Therefore, it is contended that the proceedings dated 04.05.2017 relied upon by the petitioners are not genuine official proceedings and are not acceptable in the eye of law. d) It is further stated in the counter-affidavit that the subject lands are wet lands and, therefore, no irrigation system is required for the said lands. It is also stated that the possession claimed by the petitioners was not recognized by the revenue authorities during the enquiry conducted in accordance with the instructions of the Special Investigation Team, Visakhapatnam. It is further stated that the proceedings dated 04.05.2017 were never communicated to the 3rd respondent through the office of the 2nd respondent. It is also contended that the petitioners neither approached the 3rd respondent for implementation of the alleged proceedings nor made any complaint before the District Collector, Visakhapatnam, or the Special 8 VS,J W.P.No.21454 of 2018 Investigation Team, Visakhapatnam, seeking implementation of the alleged proceedings dated 04.05.2017. Accordingly, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. 5. During the course of hearing, this Court directed the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue to obtain instructions regarding the status of the investigation by the Special Investigation Team. Pursuant thereto, the learned Assistant Government Pleader produced instructions furnished by the Tahsildar, Golugonda, vide Rc.No.112/2026/A, dated 13.07.2026, stating that the report of the Special Investigation Team is still awaited and that, as on date, the subject land is lying vacant. 6. On a perusal of the material available on record, it is evident that the petitioners herein are claiming their right over the subject property basing on the proceedings dated 04.05.2017 allegedly being issued by the 2nd respondent. However, it is also evident that, pursuant to complaints received regarding fabrication of land records, the Special Investigation Team has undertaken an investigation into various cases relating to assigned lands and encroached lands including the proceedings dated 04.05.2017 relied upon by the petitioners also form part of the said investigation, as the respondents contend that the said proceedings are fabricated and forged on account of the discrepancies found therein. 9 VS,J W.P.No.21454 of 2018 7. In view of the above instructions received from the Tahsilar, Golugonda vide Rc.No.112/2026/A dated 13.07.2026, this Court cannot direct the respondents to implement the proceedings vide LCC No.574/75/NPM dated 04.05.2017 issued by respondent No.2 when the investigation is pending before the Special Investigation Team (SIT). However, any such implementation shall be subject to the outcome of the investigation by the Special Investigation Team (SIT). Till such time, if the petitioners are in possession of the subject land, their possession shall not be disturbed by the respondents except by following due process of law. 8. 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 V.SUJATHA Dated: 21.07.2026 KGR