Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 9463 (AP)

Chitturu Venkata Subba Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

WP/16687/2024 · 2026-09-09

Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao

Original Suitbody2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010330272024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3458] WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA IA 1 OF 2026 IN WRIT PETITION NO: 16687/2024 Between: Chitturu Venkata Subba Rao ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. D KRISHNA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. KAPPERA KOTESWARA RAO SC for Endowments, AP Region. 2. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made the following: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri Kappera Koteswara Rao, learned Standing Counsel for Endowments appearing for respondent No.4. 2. This application is filed seeking review of the order dated 06.02.2026 passed in W.P.No.16687 of 2024. 2 3. The contention of the petitioner is that this Court, while passing the order, did not consider the judgment of the erstwhile composite High Court rendered in the case of the petitioner, in W.P.No.7903 of 2009. 4. Considered the submissions. Perused the record. Inadvertently, the judgment in W.P.No.7903 of 2009 in respect of the same petitioner, was not considered, wherein it was held as follows: “From a perusal of the judgment and decree in O.S.No.92 of 2003, it is clear that the petitioner is a tenant and is entitled to purchase the subject land in terms of Explanation and Explanation-II of sub-section (2) of Section 82 of the Act. It may be noted that O.S.No.31 of 1978 was filed by the father of the petitioner much prior to the amendment made to Section 82 of the Act on 26.08.2002 with retrospective effect, as such, the petitioner came to be declared as a cultivating tenant under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956. It is an admitted fact that the father of the petitioner was a tenant of respondent No.4. In terms of Section 10 (5) of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, the petitioner is a cultivating tenant as defined under Section 2 (c) thereof. Even on that ground also, rejection of the claim of the petitioner for extension of the benefits available to a small farmer, holding that he cannot be treated as a cultivating tenant is unsustainable. The order, dated 05.08.2003, passed in W.A.No.1302 of 2003 has no application to the present case as in the said case, partition was effected by the cultivating tenant to claim the benefit of a small farmer under Section 82(2) of the Act. In the context of deciding the contention whether there was a dispute with regard to the observations made in the order or in the context of deciding the dispute whether the parties therein could be declared as cultivating tenants, the requirements under sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of the A.P. Charitable Hindu Religious institutions and Endowments Lease of Agricultural Land Rules, 2003 (for short ‘the Rules, 2003’) are required to be satisfied. Therefore, based on the declarations made by the civil 3 Courts, the petitioner is a cultivating tenant as on the date of coming into force of the amendment to Section 82 of the Act. In view of the same, rejection of the claim of the petitioner for extending the benefits available to a small farmer in terms of Section 82(2) of the Act, placing reliance on the orders dated 04.08.2003 and 21.08.2006, passed in W.A.No.1302 of 2003 and W.P.No.17281 of 2006 respectively, is unsustainable…….” 5. Having regard to the same, this Court is of the view that there is an error apparent on the face of the record. Hence, the order dated 06.02.2026 passed by this Court in W.P.No.16687 of 2024 requires review. 6. Accordingly, the review petition is allowed. The order dated 06.02.2026 passed in W.P.No.16687 of 2024 is recalled. 7. The W.P.No.16687 of 2024 is restored to its original file. 8. Registry is directed to list the matter before appropriate Bench having the roster. 9. Interim order subsisting as on the date of disposal of the writ petition shall continue till the date of next hearing. ______________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA Dated:15.07.2026 ANI