Tadi Siva Sankar Reddy Vs the State of Ap

¶1

[3330]

¶2

APHC010535152025

¶3

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

¶4

FRIDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 27796/2025

¶7

Between:

¶8

TADI SIVA SANKAR REDDY, S/O. LATE HANIMI REDDY, AGED 75 YEARS, RTD. EMPLOYEE/ FARMER, R/O JALLIPALLI (V) KUDERU (M), ANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, AP

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1. THE STATE OF AP, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT (LAND), SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, A.P. 2

¶12

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 3.

¶13

THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 4.

¶14

THE TAHSILDAR, KUDERU MANDAL, ANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 5

¶15

T KRISHNA REDDY, . S/O. HANIMI REDDY, AGED 77 YEARS, RETD. TEACHER/ FARMER, R/O 1-3-82, RANGASWAMY NAGAR, ANANTHAPURAM 6.

¶16

T ANITHA, W/O. SANJEEV REDDY, AGED 43 YEARS. HOME MAKER, R/O JALLIPALLI VILLAGE, KUDERU MANDAL, ANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, AP

¶17

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶18

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 like a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 3RD Respondent in issuance of the Notice Rc.No.1905/2023 /D2(B) dated 08.09.2025 as illegal, arbitrary, unsustainable, without jurisdiction and in view of the pendency of a Civil Suit vide O.S. 38/2024 on the file of the Spl.Court of SC/ST Cases, Anantapur, filed by the 5^TH Respondent, and consequently set aside the same and to pass

¶19

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶20

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court

¶21

2

¶22

may be pleased to stay all proceedings of the 3^RD Respondent in ROR vide Appeal D2(B)/1905/2023 08.09.2025 and to pass

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶24

1.SOORA VENKATA SAINATH

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.GP FOR REVENUE

2.K SRINIVAS

3

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.27796 of 2025 ORDER:-

¶30

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

¶31

“… to issue a Writ, order or direction, more particularly one like a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 3^RD Respondent in issuance of the Notice Rc.No.1905/2023/D2(B) dated 08.09.2025 as illegal, arbitrary, unsustainable, without jurisdiction and in view of the pendency of a Civil Suit vide O.S.No.38/2024 on the file of the Spl. Court of SC/ST Cases, Anantapur, filed by the 5^TH Respondent, and consequently set aside the same and to pass such other order or orders.…”

¶32

2. Petitioner’s family acquired several properties. After demise of

¶33

petitioner’s father, they entered into a family arrangement i.e., partition deed on 23.05.1980. Pursuant to the same, respondent No.4 issued pattadar passbooks. While things stood thus, petitioner’s brother i.e., respondent No.5 filed a civil suit vide O.S.No.38 of 2024 before the competent civil Court and the same is pending adjudication. Previously, respondent No.5 also filed ROR appeal vide R.C.No.D2(B)1905/2023 before respondent No.3 concerning the same subject property. Now, respondent No.3 has issued a notice to the petitioner. Assailing the same, present writ petition is filed on the ground that the suit filed by respondent No.5 is pending adjudication before the competent civil Court and respondent No.3 is precluded

¶34

4

¶35

from passing any orders on the appeal filed by respondent No.5 during the pendency of the civil suit.

¶36

Heard Sri Soora Venkata Sainath, learned counsel for petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Sri K.Srinivas, learned counsel for respondent No.5.

¶37

Learned counsel for petitioner relied on the judgment passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Smt P.Ghousia Begum and others v. Basireddy Rukminamma and others¹ wherein the Court held that when the pattadar passbook has been issued, the same cannot be cancelled automatically unless civil Court found that there is no justification for issuance of the same. The presumption of correctness in issuance of pattadar passbook in favor of the person is always in the act and action of Government. But recording is not conclusive as it may be corrected and rectified by the civil Court. Unless a competent civil Court decides the actual title of the property in favour of any person, consequential measure for issuance or cancellation of pattadar passbook does not arise.

¶38

Learned counsel for respondent No.5 relied on the judgment passed in Peruri Venkata Chinna Krishnaiah v. The Joint Collector, Kakinada² and contended that the revenue record was amended on the strength of the alleged Will. If it is an order within the meaning of

¶39

1 2013 SCC Online AP 1252

¶40

2 W.A.no.1056 of 2014 dated 07.08.2014

¶41

5

¶42

Section 5(5) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971, Court is unable to accept the contention that the appellate authority has no jurisdiction to decide when the suit was pending. However, the finality will reach subject to Section 8(2) of the Act, which reads as under:

¶43

“8(2). If any person is aggrieved as to any rights of which he is in possession by an entry made in any record of rights he may institute a suit against any person denying or interested to deny his title to such right for declaration of his right under Chapter VI of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (Central Act 47 of 1963) and the entry in the record of rights shall be amended in accordance with any such declaration.”

¶44

The Division Bench further held that as this contention fails, we

¶45

do not find any law that fetters the power of the appellate authority and the revisional authority to scrutinize act and action of the Mandal Revenue Officer.

¶46