Sri Busi Narayana Reddy & Ors. v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Judgment

#1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Guntur District.

#5. The Joint Collector, Y.S.R. District. The R.D.O., Rajampeta, YSR Kadapa District. The Tahslidar, Sidhout Mandal, YSR Kadapa District. Smt Vadinala Sujatha, W/o. Chandra Obula Pathi, Moolapalli (V), Sidhout Mandal, YSR Kadapa Distrit.

#6. Smt Ayuri Yerikalamma, W/o. Venkata Subbaiah, R/o. Moolapalli Village, Sidhout Mandal, YSR Kadapa 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 to issue a writ order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents to in cancelling the entries made by the Proceedings D. Dis. LRDT/1787/2017 dt. 21-12-2017 confirmed 2'^'^ respondent D.Dis. REV-.^ ESECOAPLS(AASMT)/4/2018-SA(E3)- KDPCO Dt. 23-06-2022 is illegally, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice..- IA NO: 1 OF 2022 - Petition under Section 16^1 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend Proceedings D. Dis. LRDT/1787/2017 dt. 21-12-2017 respondent D.Dis. REV- ESECOAPLS(AASMT)/4/2018-SA(E3)- KDPCO Dt. 23-06-2022 is illegally, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice. respondent confirmed 2'"'^ Counsel for the PetitionerSRI. K SRINIVAS ' Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: APHC010407652022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3505] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 25222/2022 Between: Sri Busi Narayana Reddy AND ...PETITIONER The State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...RESPONDENT{S) Counsel for the Petitioner:

1.KSRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.GP FOR REVENUE 2 The Court made the following order:

#1. The petitioner claims that he is the absolute owner and possessor of land admeasuring an extent of Ac. 1.58 cents in Sy.No. 128/3 and an extent of Ac. 1.39 cents in Sy.No. 129/1 of Moolapalli Village, Sidhout Mandal, YSR Kadapa District.

#2. It is further case of the petitioner that he was also issued pattadar pass books and title deed in respect of the above lands. It is further stated that the 5^^ respondent without having any right over land admeasuring an extent of Ac.1.58 cents in Sy.No. 128/3 approached the 3'"'^ respondent seeking to rectify the revenue records by deleting his names and to incorporate her name.

#3. It further case of the petitioner that the 3 respondent without issuing notice to him passed order dated

21.12.2017, directing the 4*" respondent to rectify the entries in respect of land admeasuring an extent of Ac. 1.57 cents in Sy.No. 128/3 of Moolapalli Village. Questioning the said order, the petitioner filed revision petition before the 2'^^ respondent and after hearing parties, the 2 respondent confirmed the order passed by the 3'"'^ respondent, aggrieved by the same the present writ petition is filed. 3

#4. Heard counsel petitioner learned Government Pleader for Revenue.

#6. Perused material available on record. It is the specific case of the petitioner that he is actual physical possession of the subject land and in support of his claim, he filed revenue records viz., Form-1 (B) and adangal in respect of land admeasuring an Ac.1.58 cents in Sy.No. 128/3 wherein the petitioner’s father name was recorded as pattadar.

#7. The counsel for the petitioner would submit that, the appeal filed by the respondent is not maintainable on the ground that the same is filed for cancellation of pattadar pass books issued in favour of the petitioner. In support of contention the counsel for the petitioner relied on order passed by coordinate bench of this Court in WP No.3465 of 2020. On careful perusal of the order passed by this Court in the said writ petition, it is clear that the appeal was filed before the Revenue Divisional Officer under section 5(5) of RoR Act, 1971 seeking to cancel the pattadar passbooks. This Court held that such an appeal is not maintainable in the absence of power conferred under the statute. Coming to the case on hand, on a perusal of the appeal filed by 5*^ respondent, that she requested the 3'^^ 4 respondent to rectify the revenue records in respect of subject lands by deleting the name of the petitioner and to incorporate her name. The said appeal was entertained and an order was passed after following the principles of natural justice. On perusal of the order passed by the 3'^'^ respondent, it is clear that the petitioner is failed to substantiate his claim in respect of subject lands. It is the specific case of the 5*'^ respondent and the official respondents that the subject land was assigned in favour of the respondent, but inadvertently while issuing DKT patta in her favour, the Survey Number was wrongly noted. Therefore, she filed appeal to get the survey number rectified inasmuch as she is in actual, physical possession of the subject land. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner has not filed documentary proof to show that the subject land was assigned in favour of his father. Further, it is the specific case of the respondents that the name of the petitioner was entered into revenue records without there being any valid DKT patta in his favour. At any rate, the petitioner did not file any documentary proof apart from the above said documents to show that his father was actually assigned the subject land. In the absence of any record, the contention of the 5 petitioner that he is absolute land cannot be believed. owner and possessor of the subject

#8. From the above it is ciear that there is no iilegaiity or infirmity in the orders passed by the respondent Nos.2 & 3. Hence this Court is not inclined to interfere with the said orders.

#9. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/- M RAMESH BABU DEPUTY REGISTRAR (ft SECTION OFFICER To,

#1. One CC to SRI. K SRINIVAS Advocate [OPUC] -- 2. TwoCCsto GP FOR REVENUE ,High Court Of Andhra Pradesh [OUT]

#3. Three CD Copies HIGH COURT DATED:29/04/2025 ORDER WP.No.25222 of 2022 28SFP2I)?5 ^ . Curreni section %S^^^SPATCH«^ m «<» DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS