Smt. Kethineni Ramalakshamma Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

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

¶14

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶15

THE JOINT COLLECTOR AND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶16

THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, , KANIGIRI, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶17

THE TAHSILDAR, PEDACHERLOPALLI MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.

¶18

SMT KETHINENI DHANAMMA, , W/O. MUSALAIAH, AGED 35 YEARS, R/O. PEDACHERLOPALLI VILLAGE AND MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶19

SRI KETHINENI MALAKONDAIAH, S/O. GURAVAIAH, AGED 55 YEARS, R/O. PEDACHERLOPALLI VILLAGE AND MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶20

SMT KETHINENI PEDAKONDAMMA, W/O. NARASAIAH, AGED

¶21

2

¶22

40 YEARS, R/O. PEDACHERLOPALLI VILLAGE AND MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶23

SMT KETHINENI CHINA KONDAMMA, W/O MALYADRI, AGED 47 YEARS, R/O. PEDACHERLOPALLI VILLAGE AND MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶24

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶25

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 or Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in dismissing the revision in Revision Petition No. D.Dis.L6/599/2024 dated 25.04.2025 for non-prosecution on the pretext that the petitioners failed to appear before him on 15.03.2025 and 29.03.2025 though the 3^rd respondent is under obligation to decide the rights of the parties on merits as illegal, arbitrary and also oppose to Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and to set-aside the same, consequentially, suspend the operation of the order in Revision Petition No.D.Dis.L6/599/2024 dated 25.04.2025 by granting stay of operation of the order of the 4th respondent in RCB.No.811/2020 dated 23.07.2024.

¶26

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶27

1.A VARALAKSHMI

¶28

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶29

1.GP FOR REVENUE

¶30

The Court made the following:

¶31

3

¶32

ORDER:

¶33

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

¶34

“… to issue a Writ or Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in dismissing the revision in Revision Petition No.D.Dis.L6/599/2024 dated 25.04.2025 for non-prosecution on the pretext that the petitioners failed to appear before him on 15.03.2025 and 29.03.2025 though the 3^rd respondent is under obligation to decide the rights of the parties on merits as illegal, arbitrary and also oppose to Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and to set-aside the same, consequentially, suspend the operation of the order in Revision Petition No.D.Dis.L6/599/2024 dated 25.04.2025 by granting stay of operation of the order of the 4^th respondent in RCB.No.811/2020 dated 23.07.2024 and pass such other orders…”

¶35

The unofficial respondent No.6 filed an appeal before respondent No.4 – Revenue Divisional Officer in RCB.No.811/2020 dated 23.07.2024 against the order of the 5^th respondent – Tahsildar in respect of entries made in the revenue records for the land measuring an extent of Ac.0.58 cents, Acs.2.38 cents, Acs.1.90 cents, Acs.2.57 cents and Acs.2.50 cents in Sy.Nos.61/6, 61/8, 61/6, 61/3 and 61/4 of Pedavari Madugu village of Pedacherlapalli Mandal, and prayed to cancel the pattadar passbooks and title deeds issued in favour of the petitioners herein, as it is contrary to the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short, ‘the Act’), and the Rules made therein. The said appeal was allowed by the 4^th respondent – Revenue Divisional Officer, vide order dated 23.07.2024 and directed the Tahsildar, P.C.Palli to conduct enquiry as per the

¶36

4

¶37

envisaged procedure contemplated under Section 4 of the Act, then it is obligatory on the part of the authorities, to restore the said land in favour of the original assignees/their legal heirs.

¶38

Aggrieved by the order dated 23.07.2024 of the 4^th respondent – Revenue Divisional Officer, the petitioners herein have preferred a revision before the 2^nd respondent – District Collector and the 2^nd respondent has dismissed the revision for non-prosecution due to the petitioners’ lack of interest in pursuing the matter. Accordingly, the orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kanigiri, Prakasam District, were upheld in Revision Petition No.D.Dis.L6/599/2024 dated 25.04.2025.

¶39

The said order was impugned in the present Writ Petition on the ground that the revisional authority – 2^nd respondent has failed to consider the counter of the petitioners and did not give opportunity to submit documents and the order was passed without considering the fact that the temporary injunction order granted by the Junior Civil Judge, Kanigiri in I.A.No.748 of 2022 in O.S.No.270 of 2022 is still subsisting and due to unavoidable circumstances, the petitioners and their counsel could not appear before the 3^rd respondent and their absence was neither willful nor deliberate but due to reasons beyond the control of the petitioners.

¶40

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue has fairly conceded and stated that the order may be set aside and remit the matter to the 3^rd respondent – Joint Collector for adjudication on merits.

¶41

5

¶42

Learned counsel for the petitioners filed track report as proof of service, vide USR No.114318 of 2025 dated 07.10.2025. As per the track report, the service is affected on the unofficial respondent and no appearance is made.

¶43

According to the provisions of the aforesaid Act, it does not empower to dismiss the appeal or revision for non-prosecution. It is trite law that the matter/issue involving the parties must be decided on merits of the case, as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in plethora of judgments. Therefore, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned proceedings dated 25.04.2025 and remanding the matter to the 3^rd respondent – Joint Collector and Additional District Magistrate, Ongole, to adjudicate upon the matter on merits and dispose of the same in accordance with law.

¶44

Accordingly, the impugned proceeding dated 25.04.2025 is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded to the matter to the 3^rd respondent – Joint Collector and Additional District Magistrate, Ongole, for adjudicating the matter on merits and for disposal of the same in accordance with law. The petitioners shall cooperate for disposal of the revision and if the petitioners fail to cooperate for disposal of the revision, the revisional authority is at liberty to dismiss the revision for non-prosecution, if the petitioners take three consecutive adjournments.

¶45