Bhargavi Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. Vs K S Ravi Kumar

M/s Bhargavi Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Office 25/2/97, Industrial Estate, A.K.Nagar, Nellore, 524004. Represented by its Managing Director, Sri K.Niranjan, S/o Balarama Reddy, Aged about 58 Years, R/o 24-2-1089, Konda Balarami Reddy Street, Rajagopalapuram, Dargamitta Nellore City, Nellore District. ...Petitioner AND 1. K S Ravi Kumar, S/o K.Sundaracharl Aged 69 years, R/o D. No 245/2A. Lakshmi Nagar Colony Lane. Kongareddypalli, Chittoor, Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh, 517001. 2. K Malini Ravi Kumar, W/o K.S.Ravi Kumar, Aged 66 years, R/o D.No 245/2A. Lakshmi Nagar Colony 3^" Lane. Kongareddypalli Chittoor, Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh, 517001.

¶12

State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶13

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupati, Chittoor District.

¶14

The Tahsildar, Tirupati Rural Mandal.

¶15

...Respondents

¶16

lA NO: 4 OF 9noA

¶17

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 judgment that IS passed by the Learned Single Judge in W.P.No.1904 of 2024 on 13.03.2024 and all consequential actions initiated by the State Authorities.

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner; SRI VIVEKANANDA VIRUPAKSHA-^ Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondents: SRI JAWAJI SARATH CHANDRAAPHC010232352024

¶19

WRIT APPEAL NO: 551 OF ?n7ji ^

¶20

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the I Letters Patent preferred against the order dated 13.03.2024 in W.P.No.lOoTof 2024 on the file of the High Court.,.^ Between:

¶21

Raja Saket Ram, Aged about 38 Years, S/o Raja Srinivasa Rao R/o aNo.6-7-595, Sripuram Colony, K.T. Road, Tirupati Town and Urban Mandal Chittoor District.

¶22

3

¶23

Raja Venkat Abhinav Ram, Aged about 35 Years, S/o Raja Srinivasa Rao, R/o D.No.6-7-595, Sripuram Colony. K.T. Road, Tirupati Town and Urban Mandal, Chittoor District.

¶24

...Petitioners

¶25

K S Ravi Kumar, S/o K.Sundarachari, Aged 69 years, R/o D.No 245/2A, Lakshmi Nagar Colony, Lane, Kongareddypalli, Chittoor, Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh, 517001.

¶26

K Malini Ravi Kumar, W/o K.S.Ravi Kumar, Aged 66 years, R/o D.No 245/2A, Lakshmi Nagar Colony, Lane, Kongareddypalli, Chittoor, Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh, 517001

¶27

State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District Andhra Pradesh.

¶28

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupati, Chittoor^District.

¶29

The Tahsildar, Tirupati Rural Mandal.

¶30

lA NO: 4 OF 2024

¶31

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 judgment that is passed by the Learned Single Judge in W.P.No.1904 of 2024 on 13.03.2024 and all consequential actions initiated by the State Authorities.

¶32

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI VIVEKANANDA VIRUPAKSHA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondents: SRI JAWAJI SARATH CHANDRA

4

'Iv APHC010227762024

r

WRIT APPEAL NO: 554 OF 2024 ^

¶37

Writ Appeal under clause 15"of the Letters Patent preferred against the order dated 13.03.2024 in W.P.No.1904 of 2024 on the file of the High Court.^

¶38

Between:

¶39

Penikelapati Anil Kumar, S/o Penikelapati Hanumantha Naidu, Aged about 40 Years, Door No. 19-8-140/34, Harhiramji Colony, Tirupati Town, Tirupati Urban Mandal, Tirupati.

¶40

...Petitioner

¶41

AND

¶42

K S Ravi Kumar, S/o K.Sundarachari, Aged 69 years, R/o D.N0245/2A, Lakshmi Nagar Colony, 3^'^ Lane, Kongareddypalli, Chittoor, Chittoor District, ' Andhra Pradesh, 517001.

¶43

K Malini Ravi Kumar, W/o K.S.Ravi Kumar Aged 66 years, R/o D.No 245/2A, Lakshmi Nagar Colony 3"^^ Lane, Kongareddypalli Chittoor, Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh, 517001.

¶44

State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶45

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupati, Chittoor District

¶46

The Tahsildar, Tirupati Rural Mandal.

...Respondents ^

5

mm

lA NO: 4 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 to suspend the operation of the judgment that is passed by the Learned Single Judge in W.P.No.1904 of 2024 on 13.03.2024 and all consequential actions initiated by the State Authorities.

¶52

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI VIVEKANANDA VIRUPAKSHA _ Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE ^ Counsel for the Respondents: SRI JAVVAJI SARATH CHANDRA^ APHC010198802024

¶53

0S0

¶54

WRIT PETITION NO: 10079 OF 2024

¶55

Between:

¶56

Pamulapati Ravindra Babu, S/o.Late.Pamulapati Subba Rao, aged about 68 years, Occ.Business, R/o.H.No.249/2B2 and 249, Buranpur, Laxmi Pord, Chemudugunta Post, Venkatachalam Mandal, S.P.S.Nellore District.

¶57

...Petitioner

¶58

AND

¶59

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

¶60

The District Collector, Tirupathi (Chittoor), Tirupathi (Chittoor) District.

¶61

The Joint Collector, Tirupathi (Chittoor). Tirupathi (Chittoor) District.

¶62

The Appellate Authority/ Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupathi Divisioh, Tirupathi, Tirupathi (Chittoor) District.

¶63

The Tahsildar, Tirupathi Rural Mandal, Tirupathi (Chittoor) District.

¶64

r

¶65

K S Ravi Kumar, S/o. K.Sundarachary, aged about 69 years, Occ. Business, R/o. H.No.2452A, Lakshminagar Colony, Lane Kongareddypalli, Chittoor, Chittoor District.

¶66

K Malini Ravi Kumar, W/o. K.S.Ravi Kumar, aged about 66 years, Occ. House Wife, R/o. H.No.2452A, Lakshminagar Colony Lane Kongareddypalli, Chittoor, Chittoor District.

¶67

...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 4*' respondent in disposing of Appeal filed by the respondents 6 and 7 by order D.Dis.H/2309/2014, dated.09-06-2023, without making the proper and necessary parties and effected parties who were shown in the order of the 5*^ respondent D.Dis.B/487/2013, dated.24-05-2014, without any notice or opportunity to the petitioner and his vendors and their vendors, in respect of the land in Sy.No.212/8C2/C an extent of Ac.0.49 cents, Sy.No.212/8C2/D an extent of Ac.0.49 cents and Sy.No.212/8C2/E an extent of Ac.0.49 cents, total an extent of Ac.1.47 cents, situated at Tiruchanur Grama Panchayati ward No.9, Tiruchanur Revenue Village, Tirupathi Rural Mandal, Renigunta Sub-Division, Chittoor District, which is illegal, unjust, arbitrary, unconstitutional contrary to the Pattadar Pass Books and ROR Acts, without jurisdiction, in violation of Articles 14, 16 and 300-A of Constitution of India and in violation of principles of natural justice, and consequently set aside the order D.Dis.H/2309/2014, dated.09-06-2023, passed by the 4' respondent and further direct the respondents to retain the names into revenue records.

¶68

lA NO: 1 OF 2024 ^

¶69

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^.

¶70

7

¶71

i* a Mi

¶72

grant interim suspension of the order D.Dis.H/2309/2014 dated.09-06-2023 - passed by the 4*^ respondent, further direct the respondents to retain the entries in the revenue records, pending disposal of the Writ Petition.

¶73

lA NO: 2 OF 2024 Between:

¶74

K S Ravi Kumar, S/o. K.Sundarachary, aged about⁶⁹ years, Occ. Business, R/o. H.N0.2452A, Lakshminagar Colony Lane Kongareddypalli, Chittoor, Chittoor District.

¶75

K Malini Ravi Kumar, W/o. K.S.Ravi Kumar, aged about 66 years, Occ. House Wife, R/o. H.N0.2452A, Lakshminagar Colony Lane Kongareddypalli, Chittoor, Chittoor District.

¶76

...Petitioner"

¶77

AND

¶78

Pamulapati Ravindra Babu, S/o.Late.Pamulapati Subba Rao aged about 68 years, Occ.Business, R/o.H.No.249/2B2 and 249, Buranpur, Laxmi Pord, Chemudugunta Post, Venkatachalam Mandal S.P.S.Nellore District.

¶79

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

¶80

The District Collector, Tirupathi (Chittoor), Tirupathi (Chittoor) District. 4. The Joint Collector, Tirupathi (Chittoor), Tirupathi (Chittoor) District. 5. The Appellate Authority/ Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupathi Division, Tirupathi, Tirupathi (Chittoor) District.

¶81

The Tahsildar, Tirupathi Rural Mandal, Tirupathi (Chittoor) District.

¶82

...Respondents

¶83

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

¶84

vacate the interim orders dt. 30.04.2024 in WP.No. 10079 of 2024 and to dismiss the Writ Petition No. 10079 of 2024. ^

¶85

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI CHALLA SIVASANKAR - Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE

¶86

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI JAWAJI SARATH CHANDRA^

¶87

APHC010198302024

¶88

WRIT PETITION NO: 11189 OF 2074 Between:

¶89

A.Hymavathi, W/o A.Subramanyam, Hindu, aged about⁴² years. Residing at D.No.6-8-1133, Srikrishna Residency, K.T.Road, Tirupati. 2. A.Manjula, W/o Late A.Balamuni Reddy, Hindu, aged about 65 years. Residing at D.No.6-8-1133, Srikrishna Residency K.T.Road, Tirupati.

¶90

C.Sarala, W/o C.Adinarayana, Hindu, aged about 49 years. Residing at D.NO.20-2-474/4A, Maruthi Nagar, Korlagunta, Tirupati.

¶91

...Petitioners

¶92

AND

¶93

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi Village, Amaravathi

¶94

The District Collector, Tirupafhi District, Tirupathi.

¶95

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupafhi Districf Tirupathi.

¶96

The Tahsildhar, Tirupathi Rural Mandal, Tirupathi District.

¶97

K S Ravi Kumar, S/o K.Sundarachary, Hindu , aged about 68 years, residing at D.No.20-430, Annaswamy Mudali Street Mittoor, Chittoor District.

¶98

9 F^ 6. K Malini Ravi Kumar, W/o K.S.Ravi Kumar, Hindu aged about 63 years r residing at D.No.20-430 Annaswamy Mudali Street, Mittoor, Chittoor District.

¶99

...Respondents

¶100

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 more particularly in the form of Writ of certiorari to call for the records pertaining to Case No. D.Dis.H/2309/2014 dt. 09-06-2023 on the file of the Revenue Divisional officer, Tirupathi and the consequential notice vide Roc.A/360/2023 dt. 06-03-2024 issued by the 4'^^ respondent and to quash the same, for it being per as illegal, without jurisdiction, manifestly arbitrary, unreasonable, irrational perverse unfair, biased preposterous. whimsical, capricious, unconscionable unconstitutional, being barred by limitation, being violative of Principles of Natural Justice besides being opposed to the very spirit and object of Justice and Fair-play and Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Article 14, 19, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India. lA NO: 2 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 to stay all further proceedings pursuant to the Order passed by The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupathi District, Tirupathi i.e.. Respondent No.4 herein in Case No, D.Dis.H/2309/2014 dt.09.06.2023 pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶101

Counsel for the Petitioners: M/s VMR LEGAL

¶102

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondents: SRI JAWAJI SARATH CHANDRA

10

I

APHC010460082024

WRIT PETITION NO: 23605 OF 2094

¶107

Between:

¶108

M/s. Bhargavi Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Office. 25/2/97, Industrial Estate, A.K.Nagar, Nellore, 524004. Represented by its Managing Director, Sri K.Niranjan, S/o Balarama Reddy, Aged about 58 Years, R/o 24-2-1089, Konda Balarami Reddy Street, Rajagopalapuram, Dargamitta, Nellore City Nellore District.

¶109

...PetitionerL_

¶110

AND

¶111

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District Andhra Pradesh.

¶112

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupati, Chittoor District.

¶113

The Tahsildar, Tirupati Rural Mandal.

¶114

K S Ravi Kumar, S/o K.Sundarachari, Aged 69 years, R/o D No 245/2A Lakshml Nagar Colony, 3^^ Lane, Kongareddypalli, Chittoor, Chittoor District’ Andhra Pradesh, 517001.

¶115

K Malini Ravi Kumar, W/o K.S.Ravi Kumar, Aged 66 years, R/o D No 245/2A, Lakshmi Nagar Colony, 3" Lane, Kongareddypalli, Chittoor, Chittoor District Andhra Pradesh, 517001.

¶116

...Respondents -

¶117

Petition under Article 226 oMhe Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ or Order or Direction, more particularly one in the

11

V;-

^4

nature of Writ of Mandamus i. Declaring the action of the Respondents herein more particularly the action of the Respondent No.2 herein in passing orders vide D.Dis.H/2309/2014 on 09.06.2023, by virtue of which the Respondent No.3 herein has been directed to mutate the names of the unofficial Respondents in the Revenue Records pertaining to the property in Sy.No.212/8C2/F of Daminedu Village, Tirupati (R) Mandal, as being illegal, arbitrary, unjust, violative of Principles of Natural Justice, violative of the order of this Hon’ble Court in W.P.No. 14402 of 2022 dated 17.06.2022, violative of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 and violative of Articles 14, 19 (1)(g) and 300A of the Constitution of India, ii. Consequently set aside the order passed by the Respondent No 2 herein vide D.Dis.H/2309/2014 on 09.06.2023, iii. Direct the Respondent Nos.1 - 3 herein to restore the revenue records pertaining to the property in Sy.No.212/8C2/F of Daminedu Village, Tirupati (R) Mandal to status quo ante. ^

¶122

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶123

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 orders passed by the Respondent No.2 herein vide D.Dis.H/2309/2014 on 09.06.2023.^

¶124

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI VIRUPAKSHA DATTATREYA GOUDA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondents: SRI JAWAJI SARATH CHANDRA ^ The Court made the following common order:

¶125

RRR,J & JS,J W.A.No.487 of 2024 & batch

¶126

1

¶127

APHC010199032024

¶128

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶129

[3541]

¶130

WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶131

PRESENT

¶132

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶133

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT APPEAL NOs: 487. 551. 554 of 2024 and W.P.Nos.10079,^11189& 23605 of 2024

¶134

W.A.No.487 of 2024

¶135

Between:

¶136

Bhargavi Automobiles Pvt Ltd

¶137

...APPELLANT

¶138

AND

¶139

K S Ravi Kumar and Others

¶140

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶141

Counsel for the Appellant:

¶142

VIVEKANANDA VIRUPAKSHA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR REVENUE

¶143

2.JAVVAJ1 SARATH CHANDRA

¶144

WRIT APPEAL NO: 551/2024

¶145

Between:

¶146

Raja Saket Ram, and Others

¶147

...APPELLANT{S)

¶148

AND

¶149

K S Ravi Kumar and Others

¶150

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶151

2

¶152

RRR,J & W.A.No.487 of 2024 & bat

¶153

1

¶154

Counsel for the Appellant(S):

¶155

1. VIVEKANANDA VIRUPAKSHA

¶156

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶157

1.GP FOR REVENUE

¶158

2.JAWAJI SARATH CHANDRA

¶159

WRIT APPEAL NO: 554/2024

¶160

Between:

¶161

Penikelapati Anil Kumar, ...APPELLANT AND K S Ravi Kumar and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant: 1 .VIVEKANANDA VIRUPAKSHA Counsel for the Respondent{S): 1.GP FOR REVENUE 2.JAVVAJI SARATH CHANDRA WRIT PETITION NO: 10079/2024 Between: Pamulapati Ravindra Babu ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: I.CHALLASIVASANKAR Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶162

1.GP FOR REVENUE

¶163

3

¶164

RRR,J & JS,J W.A.No.487 of 2024 & batch

¶165

2.JAWAJI SARATH CHANDRA

¶166

WRIT PETITION NO: 11189/2024

¶167

Between:

¶168

A.Hymavathi, and Others

¶169

...PETITIONER(S)

¶170

AND

¶171

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶172

1.VMR LEGAL

¶173

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶174

1.GP FOR REVENUE

¶175

2.JAWAJI SARATH CHANDRA

¶176

WRIT PETITION NO: 23605/2024

¶177

Between:

¶178

Bhargavi Automobiles Pvt Ltd ...PETITIONER

¶179

AND

¶180

The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

¶181

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶182

1.VIRUPAKSHA DATTATREYA GOUDA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR REVENUE 2.JAVVAJI SARATH CHANDRA

¶183

This Court made the following common Judgment: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)

¶184

4

¶185

RRR,J&JS W.A.No.487 of 2024 & bat 'v “.V ‘-if •■•-.A.' set of facts between a WWf

¶186

As all these cases arise out of a common set of facts between a common set of persons, they are being disposed of, by way of this common order.

¶187

Heard Sri O. Manohar Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of M/s. V.M.R Legal in W.P.No.11189 of 2024, Sri Challa Siva Sankar, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No. 10079 of 2024, Sri Vivekananda Virupaksha, learned counsel for the appellants^{inW.A.No.551of} 2024, 487 of 2024, 554 of 2024 and the petitioner in^{W.P.No.23605of2024} Sri B. Adinarayana Rao, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Javvaji Sarath Chandra, the learned Senior Counsel for the private respondents in all the cases and the learned Assistant^{GovernmentPleader} for Revenue.

¶188

The genesis of these cases is as follows:

¶189

A. Damineedu Village, Tirupathi Rural Mandal, Chittoor District, was an Inam Village which came within the ambit of Estate Abolition Act, 1948. Lands in Sy.No.172, 175, 196, 47, 48, 52, 134 and 212 of this village were held as Inam by four branches of Sri T. Thiruvenkatachari, M.S. Pattammal, Neeli Subramanyam Chetty and Yetti Yellapa Reddy. After^theadvent of Estate Abolition Act, these four persons had moved the Settlement Officer, for grant of ryotwari patta. The learned counsel appearing for these persons before the Settlement Officer, was Sri K. Sundarachari. His wife Smt. K. Jaya

¶190

5

¶191

RRR,J&JS,J W.A.No.487 of 2024 & batch

¶192

lakshmi is said to have entered into an agreement of sale, dated 01.11.1965with the four inamdars, for purchase of Ac.50.00 cents of land. This fact was also placed before the Settlement Officer.

¶193

B. After due enquiry, the Settlement Officer, Nellore in proceedings bearing SR.No.1/15(1)/69/CTR, dated 25.08.1969, had granted joint ryotwari patta in the names of the four inamdars and Smt. K. Jaya lakshmi for Ac. 174.30 cents in Sy.No.212. The grant of patta in relation to Sy.No.212 along with all the other survey numbers mentioned above was challenged by the State, by way of A.S.No.33 of 1974, before the Estate Abolition Tribunal (District Judge) Chittoor. This appeal was dismissed on 22.02.1978 affirming the grant of patta by the Settlement Officer.

¶194

C. After the dismissal of the appeal, the Government issued Memo N0.2279/K1/78-2, dated 21.12.1978, recording that the order in the appeal does not require to be challenged. Subsequently, the District Collector, Chittoor sent a communication bearing No.Spl.Ref.B3.7018/75, dated 17.01.1979, to the Tahsildar, enclosing the memo of^{theGovernmentwitha} direction to implement the orders of the Settlement Officer, dated 25.08.1969 in the revenue records and to report compliance. In pursuance of this direction, the Tahsildar, Chandragiri directed the Taluk surveyor to carry out the changes in relation to the land as per the proceedings of the Settlement Officer, dated 25.08.1969. After this, the Tahsildar, Chittoor, by proceedings bearing J^OC.El/3714/78, dated 08.06.1981, had ordered that the land in Sy.No.212

¶195

6

¶196

RRR,J&JS W.A.No.487of 2024 & bat

¶197

and the other lands, mentioned in the proceedings of the settlement officer, be treated as patta lands with a further request to the Tahsildar, Chittoor to carryout changes as detailed above.

¶198

<br>

¶199

D. Thereafter, the persons who were entitled to the ryotwari patta had jointly addressed a letter, to the Tahsildar, for effecting^{sub-divisionoftheland} in Sy.No.212 into Sy.No.212/1 to 212/20. It appears that Sri N. Subramanyam Chetty and Sri Etti Yellappa Reddy had passed away by the time this application was made and Etti Venkata Reddy, N.L.V. Subrahmanyam, N. Ganeshan and Smt. K. Jayalakshmi appear to have signed the application. It may also be mentioned that this application set out the details of the land that was to be allotted to each of the applicants including^{theextentoflandthat} was to be included in each of the sub-divisions of 212/1 to 212/20. The Tahsildar, Chandragiri, on the basis of this request had sub-divided the land in Sy.No.212 into 19 sub-divisions. The applicants had asked allotment of Ac.11.99 cents each in Sy.No.212/12, 212/13 to Smt. K. Jaya Lakshmi. The Tahsildar had amalgamated both the extents of land in Sy.No.212/12 and allotted Ac.23.98 cents to Smt. K.Jaya Lakshmi in the said survey number. As the dispute, in the present set of cases revolves around survey No.212/8 and 212/15 it may be noted that Smt. K. Jaya lakshmi was shown as the pattadar of land in these two sub-divisions. The patta pass book said to have been issued in favour of Smt. K. Jaya lakshmi has also been placed before this Court. This patta pass book shows that an extent of Ac.8.25 cents in

¶200

/ (

¶201

7

¶202

RRR,J & JS,J W.A.No.487 of 2024 & batch

¶203

Sy.No.212/8 and 11.29 cents in Sy.No.212/15 are in the name of Smt. K. Jaya Lakshmi.

¶204

E. One Smt. B. Savithri is said to have made a representation,^dated 13.04.2011, for sub-division of land in Sy.No.212/15A^and 212/15C. The application made by Smt. B. Savithri is not available. However, the Tahsildar, Tirupathi Revenue Mandal, by proceedings bearing ROC.A/565/2011,^dated 16.05.2011, carried out the further sub-division on the basis of a report said to have submitted by the Mandal Surveyor. Under this sub-division, Sy.No.212/15A admeasuring Ac.9.14 cents were further sub-divided into 212/15A1 admeasuring Ac.8.88 cents and Sy.No.212/15 A2 admeasuring Ac.0.26 cents. Similarly, Sy.No.212/15C admeasuring^{Ac.0.52centswassub} divided into 212/15C1 admeasuring Ac.0.23 cents and 212/15C2 admeasuring Ac.0.29 cents.

¶205

F. Smt. K. Jaya lakshmi and her children being aggrieved by this order of sub-division, had filed an appeal before the^Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupathi. It appears that one Etti Sreeramulu Reddy had also filed an appeal against the said sub-division. The petitions filed by Smt. K. Jaya lakshmi were numbered as H/390/2011 and H/4489/2011. The petition filed by Sri Etti Sreeramulu Reddy and two others was numbered^{asH/4559/2011.} The Revenue Divisional Officer after going through the record and considering the submissions made by the appellants in all the three appeals, by order dated 4.11.2013, allowed the appeals filed by Smt. K. Jayalakshmi and

¶206

8

¶207

dismissed the appeal filed by Sri Etti Sriramulu Reddy. The Revenue Divisional Officer held that Sri Etti Sreeramulu Reddy could not demonstrate his right or title in any part of the land and that the sub-division carried out by the Mandal Revenue Officer in the proceedings are invalid and the Tahsildar, Tirupathi was ordered to restore original entries as per the sub-division order No.21/1981 dated .11.1981. The Revenue Divisional Officer while

¶208

remanding the matter back to the Tahsildar, had directed as follows:

¶209

The Tahsildar, Tirupati Rural is ordered to restore original entries as per SDA No.21/1981, dt .11.1981 and SD statement. The matter is remanded to Tahsildar, Tirupati^Rural. He may issue notice to all affected/interested persons and examine the flow of title from bonafide pattadars and possession over the land and take necessary action as per rules^tomutate the records and tentatively sanction sub divisions as per law. Accordingly, the appeals filed by Smt. K. Jayalakshmi^and 3 others, 1®‘ and 2^^ read above are allowed and the appeal filed by Etti Sreeramulu Reddy and 2 others, read above is dismissed”.

¶210

G. The Tahsildar, Tirupati, after receipt of this order of the Revenue Divisional Officer issued notices, dated 31.12.2013. to various persons mentioned inthe said notice. This notice was for the purposes of conducting an enquiry in terms of the directions of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupati, dated 04.11.2013. Smt. K. Jaya Lakshmi, Etti Sreeramulu Reddy and two others who had filed one of the appeals mentioned above, Smt. B. Savithri and three others and Smt. A. Hymavathi had been issued notice dated 31.12.2013. All these persons are said to have attended the enquiry. Apart from these persons, Sri P. Anna Dorai and seven others, Sri P. Janardhan

¶211

RRR,J &JS,J W.A.No.487 of 2024 & batch

¶212

9

¶213

Naidu and five others had also participated in the enquiry and made their submissions.

¶214

H. The submissions made by all these persons, except Smt. K. Jaya Lakshmi, was to the effect that she was not entitled to any part of the land in Sy.No.212/8 and 212/15 and that these are lands which fall within the share of the other Inamdars/applicants who had sought ryotwari pattas in relation to the land in Sy.No.212. The entitlement of Smt. K. Jaya Lakshmi, in relation to the Ac. 174.00 cents is restricted to Ac.50.00 cents which was confirmed by the settlement officer and subsequently affirmed by the^{EstateAbolitionTribunal} and consequently Smt. K. Jaya Lakshmi could not make any claim in relation to Sy.No.212/8 or 212/15. The Tahsildar, on the basis^{ofthesesubmissions} took the view that Smt. K. Jaya Lakshmi was granted ryotwari patta based on a simple unregistered agreement, dated 07.11.1965, executed by the Inamdars and consequently could not have been given any land in excess of the said extent. The Tahsildar on the said basis had taken the view that all the other persons, including Sri P. Anna Dorai Naidu and^{sevenothersand} P. Janardhan Naidu and five others are entitled to their claims.

¶215

I. The Tahsildar had also stated that, after perusing^documents produced before him, by the 14 persons, he was of the opinion that these 14 persons are in possession of various extents of land in Sy.No.212/8 and 212/15. The details of the other land holders were set out as per the table in the order of the Tahsildar.The Tahsildar, on the basis of these findings, held

¶216

10

¶217

RRR,J & W.A.No.487of2024&bai^ ■•''■'-'.■Vi -AH' .H-

¶218

that the persons who were in possession of the land as per the table set out i n the order of the Tahsildar should be entered as enjoyers of theland in the revenue records and necessary mutation was allowed on that basis. Aggrieved by this order, Smt. K. Jaya Lakshmi filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupati which came to be allowed on 09.06.2023, in proceedings bearing D.Dis.H/2309/2014.

¶219

K. In this order, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupathi had allowed the appeal of Smt. K. Jaya Lakshmi by setting aside the proceedings of the Tahsildar, dated 24.05.2014, with a further direction to the Tahsildar to take necessary action to restore the names of the appellants for their respective holdings in the revenue records. The findings of the Revenue Divisional officer are not being referred, in extenso, but some of the relevant findings are being recorded here. The Revenue Divisional Officer held that Sri Etti Sreeramulu Reddy, was not allotted any land, in Sy. No. 212/8 and 212/15, in the sub

¶220

division proceedings of 1981 and only Sri E. Venkata Reddy, the brother of late Sri Y. Ellappa Reddy was allotted land. The Revenue Divisional officer held that Sri Etti Sreeramulu Reddy claimed title through a subsequent agreement between him and the other inamdarsi and the same was not acceptable. K- Ravi Kumar and Smt. K. Malini Ravi Kumar, had approached this Court, by way of W.P.No.1904 of 2024 for implementation of the orders of the revenue Divisional Officer, dated 09.06.2023. A learned

¶221

11

¶222

RRR,J & JS,J W.A.No.487 of 2024 & batch

¶223

Single Judge of this Court, by way of an order dated 30.03.2024, had disposed of the Writ Petition with a direction to the revenue authorities to implement the order, dated 09.06.2023. Aggrieved by. this order, persons who had purchased land from Sri Etti Sree Ramulu Reddy had moved Writ Appeal Nos.487 551 554 of 2024. Some of the purchasers of land from Sri Etti Sree Ramulu Reddy have moved W.P.No.10079, 11189 and 23605 of 2024 challenging the proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupati, dated 09.06.2023. Sri K. Ravi Kumar and Smt. K. Malini Ravi Kumar have entered appearance and filed their counter affidavits in the Writ Petitions.

¶224

Sri O. Manohar Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel led the arguments on behalf of the appellants and the writ petitioners and the other learned counsel have adopted these arguments. Apart from this certain additional arguments were advanced by Sri Dattatreya Gouda and Sri Challa Siva Sankar in W.P.No.10079 of 2024 and 23609 of 2024.

¶225

Sri Dattatreya Gouda and Sri Challa Siva Sankar learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.No.10079 of 2024 and W.P.No.23605 of 2024 would contend that the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, in the earlier round of litigation, dated 3.11.2013, is restricted to Sy.No.212/15 whereas the petitioners, in these two writ petitions had purchased the land in Sy.No.212/8.

¶226

12

¶227

Sri O. Manohar Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel would contend that the impugned order, dated 09.06.2023, suffers from the inherent flaw on violation of principles of natural justice inasmuch as the appeal was filed without impleading any of the effected parties who^were the beneficiaries under the order of the Tahsildar, dated 24.05.2014. He would submit that the violation of principles of natural justice are sufficient^{toset-asidethesaidorder} and direct remand of the case before the Revenue Divisional Officer. On merits, the learned senior Counsel would contend that the finding of the Revenue Divisional Officer that Sri Etti Sreeramulu Reddy claimed title through another agreement has been passed ignoring the fact^{thatSriEttiSreeramulu} Reddy was impleaded in the appeal, filed in 1969, by the State, against the order of the settlement officer, as one of the sons and legal heirs of Late Sri Ellappu Reddy.

¶228

On merits, the learned Senior Counsel would also contend that the orders of the Tahsildar, were in pursuance of the directions of the Revenue Divisional Officer in the order, dated 04.11.2013, and the same cannot be faulted. He would submit that the Revenue Divisional Officer had specifically directed the Tahsildar to go into the question of actual possession of land and ownership of the land before carrying out necessary mutation, in such circumstances, the action of the Tahsildar in carrying out such changes cannot be taken to be incorrect.

¶229

13

¶230

RRR,J &JS,J W.A.No.487 of 2024 & batch

¶231

The learned Senior Counsel would also draw the attention of this Court to O.S.No.92 of 2013 filed before the V Additional District Judge, Tirupathi. This suit was filed by Smt. K. Jaya Lakshmi, Sri K.S. Ravi Kumar, Sri K.S. Ramesh and Smt. K. Malini Ravi Kumar against Sri Etti Sree Ramulu Reddy who is described as a person who has passed away^{andvariousother} defendants including the petitioners and the appellants in the above Writ Petitions and Writ Appeals. This suit was filed for a declaration that the title of the plaintiffs therein, with regard to land admeasuring Ac.5.93 cents in Sy.No.212/8 and Ac.5.32 cents in Sy.No.212/15 would not be affected by any documents created by the defendants in the suit and for a consequential relief of permanent injunction against the defendants from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs in relation^{totheaforesaid} land. This suit is said to have been dismissed for default on 31.10.2022. A learned Single Judge would also draw the attention of this Court to L.G.O.P.No.200 of 2022 filed before the District Judge-cum-Special Tribunal under Section 8(1) A.P. Land Grading (Prohibition) Act, 1982 at Chittoor filed by Smt. K. Jaya Lakshmi, Sri K.S. Ravi Kumar, Smt. K. Malini Ravi Kumar on 25.07.2022 against various persons, who are said to be in occupation of the land, including the petitioners and appellants in the present set of cases. The learned Senior Counsel would contend that it is the admitted case of Smt. K. Jayalakshmi and her family, who had filed this petition that they are not in possession of this land and that the writ petitioners and the Writ Appellants are

¶232

14

¶233

in possession of the land being claimed by them through Sri Etti SreeRamulu Reddy. He submits that, the finding of the Mandal Revenue Officer, in his order, dated 24.05.2014, that certain persons other than Smt. K. Jayalakshmi and her family members are in possession of various extents of land, in survey No. 212/8 and 212/15, is buttressed by this fact and the order passed by the Mandal revenue Officer cannot be termed to be illegal^orvoid.

¶234

Sri B. Adinarayana Rao, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the private respondents would contend that the sub-division of land and allotment of land under each of the sub-divisions was done on the basis of an application made by all the persons in whose favour ryotwari patta was directed by the Settlement Officer, Nellore. The orders of the Settlement Officer and the subsequent orders of the Estate Abolition Tribunal were never challenged and had become final. Similarly, the sub-division of land and the allotment of land, to the persons in whose favour ryotwari patta was to be given, carried out in the year 1981 were never challenged and had become final. This would mean that Smt. K. Jaya Lakshmi is the sole owner of the land in Sy.No.212/8 and 212/15.

¶235

Sri B. Adinarayana Rao, the learned Senior Counsel would further contend that the mistakes in the proceedings of the Mandal Revenue Officer, dated 16.05.2011, directing the sub-division of land on the basis of claims made by third parties were set right by the subsequent orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer, dated 04.11.2013. Apart from this the Revenue Divisional \ /

¶236

15 RRR,J &JS,J W.A.No.487 of 2024 & batch

¶237

Officer had also rejected the claims of Sri Etti Sreeramulu Reddy relating to these survey numbers, on the ground that Sri Etti Sreeramulu Reddy was not allotted any land in the sub-division proceedings of^{1981andcouldnothave} any claim over the land. In such circumstances, the further claims by Sri Etti Sreeramulu Reddy and other persons, who were claiming through him, ought to have been rejected in limini, whereas the Mandal Revenue Officer had accepted their title to the land. Further, the order of the Mandal Revenue Officer does not disclose, at any place, the source of title claimed by the persons who were shown to be in possession of the land by the Mandal Revenue Officer. The order of the Mandal Revenue Officer except stating that he had perused some documents does not explain as to how he accepted the contention of the 14 persons, shown in the table of possession, in the order of the Mandal Revenue Officer. The learned Senior Counsel would contend that the entire exercise of the Mandal Revenue Officer is not only violative of the directions of the Revenue Divisional Officer but also based on no material before the Mandal revenue Officer. He would submit that such an order is an illegality which was beyond the scope of remand and^{hastobetreatedasan} illegal order.

¶238

On the question of violation of principles of natural justice, the learned Senior Counsel would contend that setting aside the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, dated 09.06.2023, would revive the illegal order of the latis'ildar, dated 24.05.2014. The learned Senior Counsel would submit

¶239

16

¶240

RRRJ & JSj^ W.A.No.487 of 2024 & batch m

¶241

that this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, always refuses to grant relief, even in cases of violation of principles of natural justice, if such an order would revive an earlier illegal order. He relies upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Courtⁱⁿ the case of Gadde Venkateswara Rao vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others^, and the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Raj Kumar SonI and Another vs. State of U.P and Another^.

¶242

Consideration of the Court:

¶243

It is the admitted case on both sides that the land in question, which falls in Sy.No.212 of Damineedu village was declared to be part of an estate village. There were four inamdars who were entitled to a grant of ryotwari patta, under the provisions of the Estate Abolition Act, for 174 acres of land in Sy.No.212 of this village. However, the application for grant of ryotwari patta was made by five people. Smt. K. Jaya Lakshmi was joined as the 5 th applicant on the basis of an agreement of sale, dated 1.11.1965, for 50 acres, executed between the four inamdars and Smt. K. Jayalakshmi. The order of the Settlement Officer, dated 25.08.1969, records this agreement of sale, dated 01.11.1965. The Settlement Officer, after considering the material before him and the evidence of various witnesses, had granted ryotwari pattas in favour of the Inamdars as well as Smt. K. Jaya Lakshmi, by referring to the agreement of sale, dated 01.11.1965. The appeal filed by the State against

¶244

‘air 1966 SC 828 (paras 18 & 19)

¶245

‘(2007) 10 see 635 (paras 15 to 17)

¶246

17

¶247

RRR,J &JS,J W.A.No.487 of 2024 & batch

¶248

this order came to be dismissed on 22.02.1978 by the Estate Abolition Tribunal. In this order, the Estate Abolition Tribunal recorded that 50 acres of land had been sold to Smt. K. Jaya lakshmi by the four Inamdars.

¶249

A letter is said to have been submitted by the Inamdars as well as Smt. K. Jaya Lakshmi for sub-division of the land. In this letter, a request was made to sub-divide Sy.No.212 into Sy.No.212/1 and 212/20. It appears that by this time Sri Etti Ellappa Reddy, who was one of the Inamdars, had passed away and his brother Sri E. Venkata Reddy is said to have signed this letter. Under this letter, Smt. K. Jaya Lakshmi was allotted Ac.62.05 cents of land. Under this letter, land admeasuring Ac. 11.29 cents in Sy.No.212/15 was to be allotted to Sri E. Venkata Reddy. However, the Tahsildar, Chandragiri by proceedings of November, 1981 allotted the land in Sy.No.212/15 and Sy.No. 212/8 to Smt. K. Jaya Lakshmi.

¶250

Both Smt. K. Jayalakshmi and Sri Etti Sreeramulu Reddy^claimed ownership and possession of land in Sy. No.212/15 and 212/8 and sought to undo any changes in the revenue record made in favour of the other person or their purchasers. The order, of the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 04.11.2013, came to be passed as a part of the ongoing litigation. The consequent order, of the Mandal Revenue Officer, dated 24.05.2014, was challenged by Smt. Jayalakshmi, without impleading any of the persons who had participated in the enquiry before the Mandal Revenue Officer. It is clear from the order, dated 24.05.2014, that various persons, including the

¶251

18 RRR,J & W.A.No.487 of 2024 & batch

¶252

petitioners and appellants in this batch of cases, had appeared before the Tahsildar and had been heard in the matter. The orders of the Tahsildar had recorded that the various persons including some of the petitioners and appellants herein, were in possession of the land in question. Any appeal filed against such an order could not have been heard or decided, without hearing the persons whose rights had been recognized in the order under appeal. The Revenue Divisional Officer, without hearing any of these persons passed the impugned order, dated 09.06.2023. The contentions raised by the writ petitioners, who are some of the affected persons, makes it clear that there are serious issues of title and possession, which have been raised by these persons. There is a clear violation of the principles of natural justice.

¶253

Sri B. Adinarayana Rao, the learned Senior Counsel has relied upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gadde Venkateswara Rao vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others^, and the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Raj Kumar Soni and Another vs. State of U.P and Another., to contend that even if there is violation of principles of natural justice, the impugned order need not be set aside inasmuch as setting aside the said order would result in the illegal order of the Mandal Revenue Officer, dated 24.05.2014, being revived and the same would not be permissible.

¶254

^AIR 1966 SC 828 (paras 18 & 19)

¶255

19 RRR,J &JS,J W.A.No.487 of 2024 & batch

¶256

The principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases is binding on this Court. However, the question that would arise is, whether the order of 24.05.2014 is an illegal^{andvoidorderwhich} should not be revived. For this purpose, the order of the Tahsildar, Tirupati Rural Mandal, dated 24.05.2014, would have to be tested. This order came to be passed in pursuance of the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer, dated 04.11.2013.

¶257

Both Smt. K. Jaya Lakshmi as well as Sri Etti Sree Ramulu Reddy sold lands in Sy.No.212/8 and 212/15 and filed appeals against orders of mutation or sub-division made on the basis of such sales. These appeals came to be heard by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupati and culminated in the order, dated 04.11.2013. In all, three appeals appear to have been filed. Smt. K. Jaya Lakshmi filed proceedings D.Dis.H/3930/2011, dated 04.11.2013, against a No Objection Certificate said to have been issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer on 03.01.1994 and requested the Revenue^{DivisionalOfficer} to set aside the mutation carried out on the basis of such a No Objection Certificate. She filed appeal bearing H/4489/2011 against^{theordersofthe} Tahsildar, dated 16.05.2011, effecting certain sub-divisions in Sy.No.212/15 on the basis of the sales made by Sri Etti Sree Ramulu Reddy. On the other hand, Sri Etti Sreeramulu Reddy and two others, filed appeal bearing H/4559/2011 against the orders passed on 16.05.2011.^Sri Etti Sree Ramulu Reddy and others also contended in this appeal, that they had never sold any

¶258

\

¶259

20 RRR,J & JS,j^ W.A.No.487 of 2024 & batch

¶260

land to Sri B.P. Venkateswarlu who had obtained a No Objection Certificate, challenged in H/3930/2011. The Revenue Divisional Officer thereupon went into the title and right of Smt. K. Jayalakshmi as well as Sri Etti Sree Ramulu Reddy. The Revenue Divisional Officer considered the sub-divisional account prepared in 1981 and took the view that Sri Etti Sree Ramulu Reddy was not given any land in any of the sub-divisions and it was only in the name of Sri Etti Venkata Reddy. The Revenue Divisional Officer also recorded that there was a modified order of the Tahsildar said to have been passed in December, 1982 in favour of Sri Etti SreeRamulu Reddy and that^thesame was a subsequent insertion which cannot be accepted. The Revenue Divisional Officer, after holding that the Revenue Department is not competent to declare title and possession went into the title of Smt. K. Jayalakshmi and Sri Etti Sree Ramulu Reddy and rejected the appeal of Sri Etti Sree Ramulu Reddy. Sri O. Manohar Reddy would contend that, the Revenue Divisional officer had lost sight of the fact that the name of Sri Etti Sree Ramulu Naidu was brought on record, as one of the sons and legal heirs of Sri Etti Yellappa Reddy, in the appeal filed by the State against the order of the settlement officer in the year 1969 itself. We do not propose to go into the correctness of this decision as any observation made by us would affect the final disposal of the appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer. 18. However, the Revenue Divisional Officer, while observing^thatthe appropriate forum to determine the right and title over the property would be

¶261

21 RRR,J &JS,J W.A.No.487of 2024 & batch

¶262

the civil Court and the same could be settled through^O.S.No.92of 2013^which

¶263

had already been filed, disposed the appeals in the following terms:

¶264

In the above circumstances it is held that the proceedings^issued by the then MRO in D.Dis.No.221/94, dated 03.01.1994 suffers from legal infirmity and apparently not validly emanated^froma bonafide persons with legal competency. Therefore the said proceedings are set aside and in the result all the mutations, if any created for Sy.No.212/15 inrevenue records are set aside. The alleged orders of amendment of sub-visions dt. 12.82 said to have been issued by Tahsildar, Chandragiri is not authenticated by documentary evidence and as such cannot be treated as valid document. Therefore the any proceedings or mutations or rights created by anybody based on the said document are not legally valid, accordingly they are set aside.

¶265

The proceedings issued by Tahsildar in ROC.A/565/2011, dt.16.05.2011 are not based on records. In view of the elaborate discussion above the orders and the sub-divisions tentatively sanctioned are hereby set aside. The Tahsildar, Tirupati Rural is ordered to restore original entries as per SDA No.21/1981, dt .11.1981 and SD statement. The matter is remanded to Tahsildar, Tirupati Rural. He may issue notice to all affected/interested persons and examine the^flowof title from bonafide pattadars and possession over the land and take necessary action as per rules to mutate the records and tentatively sanction sub divisions as per law.

¶266

Accordingly, the appeals filed by Smt. K. Jaya Lakshmi^and 3 others, 1®‘ and 2"^* read above are allowed and the appeal filed by Etti Sree Ramulu Reddy and 2 others, 3''‘ read above is dismissed as appeal lies before the District Collector, Chittoor within 30 days from the date of receipt of order.

¶267

22 RRR,J &

¶268

W.A.No.487 of 2024 & batc^E

¶269

The aforesaid directions required the Tahsildar, Tirupati^Ruralto restore original entries as per the sub-divisional^{accountandstatement} of November, 1981 and to issue notice to all affected/interested persons and examine the flow of title from bonafide pattadars and persons in possession over the land and take necessary action for mutation^{ofrecordsfortentative} sanction of sub-division. In such circumstances, the Tahsildar is duty bound to issue fresh notices to all the persons, who were claiming possession over the land and making claims over the land and to determine the persons who were in possession apart from examining the flow of title of the persons claiming to be the bonafide pattadars, before take necessary action^{forsanctionoffresh} sub-divisions as per law. The action of the Tahsildar in taking up subsequent proceedings and passing the order, dated 24.05.2014, recording the names of the persons in possession of the land and the claims of the pattadars, cannot be treated an illegal exercise of jurisdiction nor^{canhisorderbetreatedasan} illegal order which cannot be revived. While this Court is not going into the correctness or otherwise of the order of the Tahsildar, it is of the view that the said order cannot be held to be an illegal order.

¶270

\

¶271

In view of the aforesaid finding and inview of the^{factthatthere} has been clear violation of principles of natural justice, it would only be appropriate for this Court to set aside the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, dated 04.11.2013, and to remand^{thematterback} to the

¶272

23 RRR,J &JS,J W.A.No.487 of 2024 & batch

¶273

Revenue Divisional Officer for further enquiry and for passing of necessary orders. The contentions of Sri Virupaksha Dattatreya Gouda and Sri Challa Siva Shankar, regarding the applicability of these orders to the land in Sy. No. 212/8 is left open.

¶274

One other aspect which requires tobe noted is the dismissal of O.S No. 92 of 2013 and the pendency of L.G.O.P.No.200 of 2022 before the District Judge, Chittoor. As rightly observed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, in the impugned order, the appropriate forum for determination of the right and title of the parties can only be a civil Court of appropriate jurisdiction or, in the present case, the Land Grabbing Tribunal, as the private respondents have chosen to approach the Land Grabbing Tribunal after having allowed the earlier suit tobe dismissed for default.

¶275

The Writ petitions are disposed with the following^directions;

¶276

The order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, dated 09.06.2023, is set aside and the appeal is remanded back to the Revenue Divisional Officer for passing orders, only after issuing^noticeand giving an opportunity of hearing to the all the persons^whohad participated in the enquiry conducted by the Mandal Revenue Officer, culminating in the order, dated 24.05.2014.

¶277

In view of the pendency of the L.G.O.P, before the District Judge, Chittoor, any order that would be passed by^theRevenue

¶278

Divisional Officer, would be subject to the orders of the District Judge, Chiftoor in the L.G.O,P,No.200 of 2022 The parties are also not precluded from initiating proceedings before the appropriate civil Courts, according to law, if they so choose and any decision made by such a civil court would override any order that may be passed by the Revenue Divisional Order.

¶279

Any finding or observation given by this court, in this order was only for the purposes of deciding these cases and the said observation or finding will not be used in any further proceedings before the Revenue Divisional Officer or any other authority or Court/Tribunal. As the order, dated 09.06.2023, has been set aside, the writ appeals have become infructuous and they are closed.

¶280

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶281

Sd/- M RAMESH BABU DEPUTY REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SEC OFFICER

To,