P Subhakar Reddy Vs the State of Ap

¶1

APHC010274582023

¶2

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

¶3

[3330]

¶4

FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

¶7

WRIT PETITION No.15293 of 2023

¶8

Between:

¶9

P SUBHAKAR REDDY, S/O LATE VENKATRAMI REDDY, R/O. NALLAPAREDDIGARIPALLE, PAKARAPET POST, CHINNAGOTTIGALLU MANDAL, TIRUPATHI DISTRICT.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI VILLAGE, AMARAVATHI.

¶13

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TIRUPATHI DISTRICT, TIRUPATHI.

¶14

THE JOINT COLLECTOR, TIRUPATHI DISTRICT, TIRUPATHI.

¶15

THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, TIRUPATHI DISTRICT, TIRUPATHI.

¶16

THE TAHSILDHAR, CHINNAGOTTIGALLU MANDAL, TIRUPATHI DISTRICT.

¶17

THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION AND STAMPS, VIJAYAWADA, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶18

THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR, TIRUPATHI DISTRICT, TIRUPATHI. 8. THE SUB REGISTRAR, C.G.GALLU SRO, CODE.1002, CHINNAGOTTIGALLU MANDAL, TIRUPATHI DISTRICT.

¶19

KAREPPLI GEETHANJALI, W/O K.RAMESH REDDY, R/O. NALLAPAREDDIGARIPALLE, PAKARAPET POST, CHINNAGOTTIGALLU MANDAL, TIRUPATHI DISTRICT.

¶20

KAREPPLI GIREESH REDDY, S/O K.RAMESH REDDY, R/O. NALLAPAREDDIGARIPALLE, PAKARAPET POST, CHINNAGOTTIGALLU MANDAL, TIRUPATHI DISTRICT.

¶21

KAREPPLI GOWTHAM REDDY, S/O K.RAMESH REDDY, R/O. NALLAPARCDDIGARIPALLE, PAKARAPET POST, CHINNAGOTTIGALLU MANDAL, TIRUPATHI DISTRICT.

¶22

BHEEMA BHASKAR REDDY, S/O B.BALARAMI REDDY, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT D.NO.3/52/1,

¶23

2

¶24

THUMMALAGUNTA VILLAGE AND POST, TIRUPATI RURAL MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

¶25

KUPPI REDDY BHASKAR REDDY, S/O K.NADAMUNI REDDY, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT D.NO.6-59, CHURCH STREET, KOTHAPETA, CHANDRAGIRI VILLAGE, POST AND MANDAL, CHITTOR DISTRICT.

¶26

CHINNAGURUVAGARI CHANDRA MOULI REDDY, S/O LATE CHINNA GURUVAGARI VENKAT REDDY, HINDUY, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, RESIDING AT D.NO.22-220, AKKAGARLA COLONY, PATHAPETA, CHANDRAGIRI VILLAGE, POST AND MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

¶27

MANIKONDA YUGANDHAR, S/O ANANDA RAJU MANIKONDA, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT FLAT NO.103, L.S.NAGAR, MUTHYALAREDDYPALLI, TIRUPATI

¶28

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶29

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.(D2)/386/2023 and the Order dated 02.06.2023 on the file of the Joint Collector, Tirupathi District and to quash the same for it being per se illegal, manifestly arbitrary, unreasonable, irrational, perverse, unfair, biased, preposterous, whimsical, capricious, unconscionable, unconstitutional besides 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 and for a consequential direction to mutate the name of the petitioner with respect to the lands upto an extent of Ac.1.11 cents in Sy.No.14/2 of Tirupati District (previously Chittoor District), Chinnagottigallu Sub-District, Chinnagottigallu Mandal, Bakarapet Village.

¶30

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶31

1.PULIPATI RADHIKA

¶32

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶33

1.BALAJI BOLLA

¶34

2.GP FOR REVENUE

¶35

3.T C KRISHNAN

¶36

4.GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS (AP)

¶37

The Court made the following:

¶38

3

¶39

ORDER:

¶40

The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

¶41

“… to issue a writ more particularly in the form of Writ of certiorari to call for the records pertaining to Case No.D.Dis.(D2)/386/2023 and the Order dated 02.06.2023 on the file of the Joint Collector, Tirupathi District and to quash the same for it being per se illegal, manifestly arbitrary, unreasonable, irrational, perverse, unfair, biased, preposterous, whimsical, capricious, unconscionable, unconstitutional besides 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 and for a consequential direction to mutate the name of the petitioner with respect to the lands upto an extent of Ac.1.11 cents in Sy.No.14/2 of Tirupati District (previously Chittoor District), Chinnagottigallu SubDistrict, Chinnagottigallu Mandal, Bakarapet Village and pass such other order or orders ….=

¶42

The petitioner made an application dated 14.07.2021 for mutation of his name in respect of land in Sy.No.14/2 admeasuring Acs.1.45 cents, and the same was rejected by the 5^th respondent – Tahsildar, vide proceedings in ROC.A/96/2021 dated 05.10.2021. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner herein filed an appeal. The 4^th respondent – Revenue Divisional Officer has dismissed the appeal for insufficient documentation of title over the land in an extent of Ac.1.09 cents in Sy.No.14/2, vide order dated 09.01.2023 in D.Dis.(H)/724/2022. The 3^rd respondent – Joint Collector has dismissed the revision, vide order dated 02.06.2023 in Case No.D.Dis.(D2)/386/ 2023, because there is a title dispute in between the petitioner and unofficial respondents.

¶43

4

¶44

Assailing the order of the 3^rd respondent – Joint Collector, the present Writ Petition is filed on several grounds.

¶45

Be that as it may, learned counsel appearing for the unofficial respondents, inter alia , would submit that the petitioner herein filed a suit in O.S.No.124 of 2022 on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Pileru, for declaration of title and for consequential relief of injunction, as per the directive issued by the 3^rd respondent – Joint Collector.

¶46

And the petitioner could not invoke two parallel proceedings for the same reliefs, hence, prays to dismiss the present Writ Petition, directing the petitioner herein to seek the same remedy before the trial Court.

¶47

The Supreme Court in Jai Singh Vs. Union of India and others reported in 1977(1) SCC 1, held that: <The Court would’nt ordinarily permit a party to pursue two parallel remedies in respect of the same subject matter=.

¶48

At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner would state that as there is no Presiding Officer to conduct the trial and there is a likelihood of alienation or creation of third party rights over the subject property of the writ petitioner. This would prejudice the petitioner and requested this Court to dispose of the Writ Petition by protecting the interest of the petitioner till disposal of the suit.

¶49

Learned counsel appearing for the unofficial respondents has vehemently opposed for the said relief and he would suggest that this Court may direct the trial Court for early disposal of the I.A.No.351 of

¶50

5

¶51

2025, having chosen to avail the remedy of suit and the present Writ Petition is not maintainable.

¶52

As rightly argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner, if any alienation is made, third party rights will come into play and the disposal of the suit will be further delayed. Therefore, this Court is inclined to dispose of the Writ Petition in the following:

¶53

The trial Court/In-charge Court is directed to dispose of I.A.No.351 of 2025 in O.S.No.124 of 2022, as expeditiously as possible, not later than four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of the order. Till such time, the unofficial respondents are directed to maintain status quo in all aspects, as on today. The trial Court to consider the issue involved in the suit on its own merits without getting prejudiced with the observation made or protection granted by this Court in the above.

¶54