Date of reserved for orders : 22.07.2026 Date of pronouncement : 02.09.2026 Date of uploading : 02.09.2026 APHC010502292022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] WEDNESDAY, THE 2nd DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 30771/2022 Between: 1. SOORA SUDHAKAR REDDY, S/O.S.RAMACHANDRA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCC. CULTIVATION, R/O.D.NO. 13-210, PEDDAKAPU LAY- OUT, TIRUPATHI, TIRUPATHI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRL. SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TIRUPATHI, TIRUPATHI DISTRCT. 3. THE TIRUPATHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER, TILAK ROAD, TIRUPATHI, TIRUPATHI DISTRICT. 4. SOORA MANJULA W/O LATE SOORA MUNINATHA REDDY HOME MAKER, TEMP. R/O 18 3 58/F, SANTHI NAGAR, KADHI COLONY, TIRUPATI TOWN AND DISTRICT - 517507. 5. SOORA VENKATA SAINATH S/O LATE SOORA MUNINATHA REDDY ADVOCATE, TEMP. RESIDENT OF 18 3 58F, SANTHI NAGAR, KADHI COLONY, TIRUPATI TOWN AND DISTRICT 517507. 6. MAGUNTA MAMATHA D/O LATE SOORA MUNINATHA REDDY HOUSE WIFE, TEMP. RESIDENT OF 18 3 58F, SANTHI NAGAR, KADHI COLONY, TIRUPATI TOWN AND DISTRICT 517507. RR 4 TO 6 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER COURT ORDER DT. 24.4.23 VIDE ORDER PASSED IN IA 2 OF 2022 7. KOTURU ANJINEYULU, S/O K.CHENNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O D.NO.19-4-40, S.T.V. NAGAR, TIRUPATI, A.P -517501. R7 IS IMPLEADED AS PER THE COURT ORDER DT 26.02.2024 VIDE ORDER PASSED IN I.A.NO 01 OF 2024. ...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 topleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of 'Writ of Mandamus' declaring the action of the respondents, particularly the high handed action of the 3rd respondent - Municipality, in interfering with the petitioner's possession and enjoyment of 2 the land, and the proposed construction of the Burial Ground, in an extent of Ac. 2-00 cents, out of an extent of Ac. 9.83 cents in Sy. No. 57/1 of Tirupathi Revenue Village, Tirupathi (U) Mandal, Tirupathi District, without following the procedure, as wholly arbitrary, illegal, unjust, violative of principles of natural justice, malafide and violative Article 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently the respondents be directed not to interfere or dispossess the petitioner from the land, admeasuring Ac. 2-00 cents, out of an extent of Ac. 9.83 cents in Sy. No. 57/1 of Tirupathi Revenue Village, Tirupathi ( U ) Mandal, Tirupathi District, and further directed the respondents not to proceed with the proposed construction of Burial Ground in the land in an extent of Ac.2-00 Cents, out of an extent of Ac. 9.83 cents, in Sy.No.57/1 of Tirupathi Revenue Village and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2022 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 direct the respondents, not to interfere/dispossess the petitioner, construction of Burial Ground in the land, admeasuring Ac. 2-00 cents, out of an extent of Ac. 9.83 cents in Sy. No. 57/1 of Tirupathi Revenue Village, Tirupathi ( U ) Mandal, Tirupathi District, pending disposal of the writ petition and to pass IA NO: 2 OF 2022 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 implead the proposed parties as respondents 4 to 6 in the above writ petition 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 pleased to order permitting the proposed respondent to Implead and come on record as Respondent No.7 in W.P.No.30771 of 2022, enabling the petitioner to make appropriate applications/ counter in the present proceedings and to contest the case, in the interest of justice and fair play 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 May be pleased to grant leave to the Petitioner in the writ petition, to file Reply affidavit by condoning the delay and consequently order to receive the Reply affidavit on record and to 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 May be pleased to grant leave to the Petitioner in the writ petition, to file Reply affidavit by condoning the delay and consequently order to receive the Reply affidavit on record and to pas IA NO: 3 OF 2025 3 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 grant leave to the Petitioner in the writ petition, to file Reply affidavit by condoning the delay and consequently order to receive the Reply affidavit on record and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. S V MUNI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. POTHAM VENGALA REDDY SC For M.Corporation in Rayalaseema region In 2. PARTY IN PERSON 3. ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL (AP) 4. VENKATASUBBAIAH V 5. JANGAM VENKATA SIVA SAI The Court made the following: 4 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION No.30771 of 2022 ORDER: 1. The writ petition is filed seeking to declare the action of the respondent No.3 in interfering with the petitioners possession and enjoyment of the land and the proposed construction of the burial ground in an extent of Ac.2.00 cents out of Ac.9.83 cents in Survey No.57/1 of Tirupati Revenue Village, Tirupati Urban Mandal, Tirupati District as illegal and arbitrary and a consequential direction not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner and a further direction not to proceed with the proposed construction of the burial ground. 2. Sri.P.Veera Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s father took on lease land assuring Ac.14.82 cents in Survey No.57 from Marrichetti Krishnaiah; after the demise of Marrichetti Krishnaiah, his wife Subbamma succeeded to the share of Marrichetti Krishnaiah. Thus, the petitioner acquired title over land admeasuring Ac.10.82 cents out of Ac.14.82 cents in Survey No.57/1, and Marrichetti Subbamma became the owner of land admeasuring Ac.4.00 cents. It is also submitted that the land admeasuring Ac.0.99 cents was lost in the road-widening project, and thus the petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of Ac.9.83 cents in Survey No.57/1. 5 3. The learned senior counsel further submits that the respondent No.3 is holding out threats to dispossess the petitioner from the subject lands and is in the process of constructing a burial ground in land admeasuring Ac.2.00 cents out of the total extent of land admeasuring Ac.9.83 cents. It is submitted that the respondent No.3 cannot demarcate any private property for constructing a burial ground and that a procedure under the A.P.Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, is required for setting up new places for disposal of dead. It is submitted that the respondent No.3 cannot unilaterally decide to convert the agricultural land of the petitioner into a burial ground. 4. The respondent Nos.4 to 7 are impleaded as party respondents and Sri. Venugopal, the learned senior counsel, appears for respondent No.7. It is submitted that the subject land in Survey No.57/1 stands in the name of Sri Swamy Hatiramji Matt, Tirupati, vide patta No.166. It is also submitted that the title referred to over land in Survey No.57/1 is disputed and that the petitioner was never in possession or enjoyment of the said land. It is submitted that A.T.C. No. 1 of 1990 was a collusive proceeding obtained without arraying the respondent Nos. 4 to 7 and Sri Swamy Hatiramji Matt as party respondents in the said proceedings. It is also submitted that the respondent No. 4 to 7 and Sri Swamy Hatiramji Matt were deliberately not made party respondents in L.A.O.P.No.413 of 2007 and the Appeal A.S.No.352 of 2018. It is submitted that Sri Swamy Hatiramji Matt was granted patta No., and the 6 revenue records about Survey Nos. 54 and 57/1 stand in the name of the Sri Swamy Hatiramji Matt. 5. It is also submitted that the graveyard has existed for the last four decades and the respondent No.3 is in the process of modernising it by erecting an electric crematorium. It is also submitted that the true extract of entries of Takeed dated 11.09.1937 made in the Swastha Guttapatta Register maintained in the Math office, the lands covered in Survey Nos.57, 58 and 59 of Tirupati village were granted by the then Mahanth of the Matt in favour of Harijan Rights of Pedda Harijanawada at Tirupati in the year 1937. 6. The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 submits that a detailed counter is filed. It is submitted that the Assistant Commissioner, Endowment, Chittoor, in his letter No.B1/409497/2021, dated 31.01.2022 addressed to the Commissioner, Endowments, Andhra Pradesh, had reported that the land in Survey No.57/1 is admeasuring a total extent of Ac.14.32 cents and is classified as inam wet land and stands in the name of Sri Swamy Hatiramji Matt vide Katha No.166. 7. It is also submitted by the learned standing counsel for the respondent No.3 that the Mahanth of the Matt had addressed a letter dated 23.11.2021 to the Principal Secretary to Government, Endowment Department expressing the willingness to alienate ten acres of land in 7 Survey No.57/1 at the prevailing market value to the respondent No.3 for development of the corporation infrastructure. 8. It is submitted that the petitioner does not have any extent of land in Survey No.57/1 and that an extent of two acres is utilised as a burial ground for the last four decades. It is submitted that the petitioner approached this Court by suppressing all these facts and filed the present writ petition when the respondent No.3 started constructing a compound wall around the two acres of land used as a burial ground. 9. The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 also submits that the copies of death reports maintained at the burial ground are filed and that the present status of the burial ground showing the erection of pillars and digging trenches for erecting pillars for construction of compound wall is underway. 10. The respondent No.5 has appeared before this Court as party-in- person, and it is submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary parties. It is submitted that the petitioner, after filing of the writ petition, was aware of the stand taken by the official respondents that the subject property stands in the name of Sri Swamy Hatiramji Matt and that the petitioner deliberately avoided arraying Sri Swamy Hatiramji Matt as party respondent. It is also submitted that the orders dated 19.04.1961 vide proceedings Roc. No. 3901/1959 were found to be fabricated and forged, and the said observation was alsorecorded while dismissing the writ petition with costs in 8 WP.No.12954 of 1996 between E.Venugopal Chetty Vs. District Collector, Chittoor and others1. 11. It is also submitted that Writ Appeal 437 of 1999 was dismissed by the learned Division Bench of this Court in the matter of E.Venugopal Chetty Vs. District Collector, Chittoor and others 2. The learned Division Bench observed that when there is a likelihood of a cloud on the title of the property, the dominant purpose of filing the writ petition is merely to obtain orders for preparation of evidence for helping the petitioner for facilitating the ultimate dispute of title. It was held that it was necessary for the petitioner to approach the Civil Court for determination of title. 12. The respondent No.5 also submits that the proceedings which were found to be fabricated are now pressed into service by the petitioner for claiming title and possession over the same. It is submitted that the petitioner is aware of the fabricated proceedings and is trying to mislead this Court. It is also submitted that the petitioner's attempt amounts to playing fraud on the Court. 13. The respondent No.2 filed a detailed counter and the learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that the claim of the petitioner over the property is denied. It is submitted that the proceedings of the Joint Collector, Chittoor dated 18.08.2004 have held that the file bearing 1 1998 SCC OnLine AP 853 2 1999 SCC OnLine AP 956 9 No.R/Dis.3901/59, dated 19.04.1961 received from Mandal Revenue Officer, Chandragiri in L.Dis.A/150/2002, dated 28.02.2002 is a created, fabricated, forged and bogus and all the proceedings/orders covered therein are null and void. 14. The respondent No.7 has also filed a counter denying the claim of the petitioner. 15. Heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent No.2 and the learned standing counsel for the respondent No.3 and the learned senior counsel for respondent No.7 and the learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.4 and 6 and the respondent No.5 as party-in-person. Perused the material on record. 16. The issue raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition pertains to the alleged attempt of the respondent No.3 in trying to convert two acres of agricultural land in Survey No.57/1 of Tirupati Urban Mandal into a graveyard. The petitioner contends that he has acquired title, is in possession and enjoyment, and is the titleholder of land admeasuring Ac. 9.83 cents. The petitioner has referred to several documents claiming title. 17. The official respondents have categorically denied the title of the petitioner and in turn have stated on oath that the subject property stands in the name of Sri Swamy Hatiramji Matt. The proceedings vide 10 Roc. 3901/1959, dated 19.04.1961, are pressed into service by the petitioner. However, these proceedings were held to be fabricated in WP.No.12954 of 1996 by a learned Single Judge of this Court. 18. The petitioner has not explained as to what prevented the petitioner from impleading Sri Swamy Hatiramji Matt as party respondent when the counter by the respondent No.2 was filed in the year 2022 itself. The reply submitted by the petitioner also does not state any valid acceptable reason for not impleading Sri Swamy Hatiramji Matt as party respondent. The writ petition deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone for non-joinder of necessary parties. 19. On law as well, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed; the petitioner’s title is under a cloud, and it is for the petitioner to establish his right, title and claim over the subject property by approaching the appropriate Court. It is not explained what prevented the petitioner from approaching the Court of law when the graveyard had been in use for the last four decades. The proceedings vide Roc.3901/1959, dated 19.04.1961, are treated as fabricated. The respondent No.2 has filed the proceedings of the Joint Collector dated 18.08.2004 categorically holding that the file bearing No.R/Dis.3901/59, dated 19.04.1961 received from Mandal Revenue Officer, Chandragiri in L.Dis.A/150/2002, dated 28.02.2002 is a created, fabricated, forged and bogus and all the proceedings/orders covered therein are null and void. 11 20. When all these points raised by the respondents categorically indicate that the petitioner has failed to make out a case for grant of relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court is not inclined to consider granting any relief to the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition deserves dismissal. 21. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Date : 02.09.2026 KGM Whether the order is: Speaking Reasoned ☑ Reportable Non-reportable ☑ 12 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION No.30771 of 2022 Date: 02.09.2026 KGM