Sanala Alluraiah Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

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 order dated 03.02.2025 passed by the Learned Single Judge in W.P.No.10449 of 2022 before the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, pending disposal of writ appeal. ^

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P. NARAHARI BABU

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent No.1:GP FOR STAMPS & REGISTRATION^ " Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 5:GP FOR REVENUE

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent No.6: SRI ELURU SESHA MAHESH BABU The Court made the following: JUDGMENT

¶27

APHC010320052025

¶28

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3541] (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶29

MONDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶30

PRESENT

¶31

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶32

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM

¶33

WRIT APPEAL NO: 756/2025

¶34

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent begs to present this Memorandum of Writ Appeal aggrieved by the order dated 03.02.2025 passed in W.P.No.10449of 2022of a Learned Single Judge of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati

¶35

Between:

¶36

1.SANALA ALLURAIAH, S/0 KASI BATHULA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, OCC CARPENTER. R/O.DARIMADUGU VILLAGE, MARKAPURAMMANDAL PRAKASAM DISTRICT

¶37

...APPELLANT

¶38

AND

¶39

1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. REGISTRATION AND STAMPS DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS AT VELAGAPUDI.AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶40

2.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ONGOLE.

¶41

3.THE JOINT COLLECTOR, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ONGOLE.

¶42

4.THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MARKAPURAM, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.

¶43

5.THE TAHSILDAR, MARKAPUR, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.

¶44

6.THANDRAVENKATAMMA, W/0. VENKATA SUBBIAH R/O. RAJUPALEM VILLAGE. INDUPUR POST, MARKAPUR MANDAL,

¶45

2

¶46

RRR, J &JS,J I W.A.No.756of2025

PRAKASAM DISTRICT.

...RESPONDENT(S):

lA NO: 1 OF 20?/^

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 Phased to condone the delay 113 days in filing writ appeal against the order dated 03.02,2025 in W.P.No. 10449 of 2022,pending the above writ appealand pass such

¶51

lA NO: 2 OF 20?.^

¶52

Petition under Section 151 CPC in thn ff .i -4 41 -1 • 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 suspend the order dated 03.02.2025 passed by the Learned Single Judge in W.P.No. 10449 of 2022before the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, pending disposal of writ appealand pass such

¶53

Counsel for the Appellant:

¶54

1.P NARAHARI BABU

¶55

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶56

1.ELURU SESHA MAHESH BABU

¶57

2.GP FOR REVENUE

¶58

3.GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS

¶59

RRR, J&JS,J W.A.No.756of2025

¶60

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

¶61

Heard Sri P. Narahari Babu, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Eluru Sesha Mahesh Babu, learned counsel for the^private respondent and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue, appearing for the official respondents.

¶62

The father of the appellant was the owner of Ac.4.16^centsofland in Sy.No.94 of Idupuru Village, Markapur Mandal, Prakasam District. The father of the appellant had executed certain deeds^{ofsale,alienatingpartsof} the land in question. After his demise, the appellant^{hereinapproachedthe} Revenue Divisional Officer, Markapuram, with the contention^{thathisfather} had sold only part of the land while the purchasers^{claimedownershipover} the entire land on the basis of the very same sale^deedsand the same requires to be rectified. The Revenue Divisional Officer, after^{verificationofthe} sale deeds produced by the contesting purchasers, had^{takentheviewthata} part of the land had not been sold by the father of^{theappellantanddirected} mutation of the revenue entries on the basis of such^{finding.Thisorderofthe} Revenue Divisional Officer is said to have been passed^{inproceedings,which} was filed as Appeal Petition vide D.Dis.No.A/765/2018.^{Aggrievedbythesaid} order, dated 28.04.2021, one of the purchasers had^{filedarevisionbeforethe} Joint Collector (RB&R) and Additional District Magistrate,^{PrakasamDistrict,} by way of R.P.No.D.Dis.D7/278/2021, raising various^{groundsofrevision.The} -Jiiint Collector, after recording the submissions^{madebybothsides,heldthat}

¶63

RRR, J&JS,J ^ W.A.No.756 of 2025 '

¶64

both parties would have to file a civil suit under Section 8(2) of the A.P. Rights in Land Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1989, for a declaration of right over the property and it is only thereafter that any further steps should be taken. The Joint Collector also took into account the fact that the appellant herein had approached the Authorities again after a lapse of 37 years and the same would also have to be taken into account.

¶65

Agrieved by this order in directing the parties to approach the Civil Court, the appellant herein filed W.P.No.10449 of 2022, before this Court. A learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed the Writ Petition, by an order, dated 03.02.2025. The learned Single Judge took the view that the appeal proceedings before the Revenue Divisional Officer were not maintainble in view of the Judgment of a Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad, for the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, in the case of Ratnamma vs. R.D.O. Dharmavaram\ The Division Bench, in this Judgment, held that the appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, under Section 5 (5) of the Act, would be available only when orders had been passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer/Tahsildar, under Section 5 and such orders are challenged in an appeal.

¶66

In the present case, appeal was not filed against any order of the Mandal Revenue Officer or the Tahsildar. In such circumstances, the Judgment of the learned Single Judge, holding that the proceedings before

¶67

‘2015(6) ALT 339

¶68

5

¶69

RRR, J&JS,J W.A.No.756of2025

¶70

the Revenue Divisional Officer were without jurisidiction,^{wouldhavetobe} upheld.

¶71

In such circumstances, this Writ Appeal is disposed of. However, both sides would be at liberty to agitate their rights before an appropriate forum, which can look into the merits of the case apart from the delay in 37 years in approaching the authorities, as raised by the contesting purchasers. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶72

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶73

//TRUE COPY//

¶74

Sd/- M-RAMESH BABU {^ppijTY REGia I 'SECTIOM OFFICER

¶75

To,

¶76

State of

¶77

1. The Principal Secretary, Registration and Stamps Department, At Velagapudi,Amaravatrr

¶78

Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings Guntur District.

¶79

The District Collector, Prakasam District, Ongole.

¶80

The Joint Collector, Prakasam District, Ongole.

¶81

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Markapuram, Prakasam^Distribt

¶82

The Tahsildar, Markapur, Prakasam District.

¶83

One CC to Sri P. Narahari Babu, Advocate [OPUC]^{^}

¶84

Sesha Mahesh Babu, Advocate [OPUCf

¶85

1. One CC to Sri Eluru 8. TwoCCsto GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUTf 9. Two CCs to GP for Stamps and Registration, High Court of Andhr^ Pradesh [OUT]

¶86

Two CD Copies.

ssb

HIGH COURT

DATED:07/07/2025

JUDGMENT WA No.756 OF 2025

¶91

DISPOSING OF THE W.A. WITHOUT COSTS

Sanala Alluraiah v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanala Alluraiah v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K. Nagaraja Naidu, Vs Mr. Budithi Rajsekhar

M/s. Sri Shakthi Communications, Vs The Assistant Commissioner of State Taxes

Novelty Reddy and Reddy Motors Pvt. Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner

The Ap State Waqf Board Vs Akula Venkata Ramana

Nara Adilakshmi, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Palakeethi Lavanya Vs the State of Ap