P Mohammed Ali Vs the State of Ap

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 of mandamus or any appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the action of the respondents particularly the 2^nd respondent in not removing the petitioners lands in Survey No. 194/1B1 to admeasuring Ac.5.00 cents, Sy.No.194/182 admeasuring Ac.1.10 cents and in Sy. No.194/2B1 admeasuring of Ac.3.90 cents Budidhapadu village, Gudur Mandal, Kurnool District from the dispute register and also the action of the 4th Respondent in not uploading his removed digital signature on the land of the Petitioners in the Web-Land Adangals/Records (Revenue Records) as

¶19

2

¶20

illegal, arbitrary, violation of Article 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and contrary to the provisions of the ROR Act, 1971 and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to remove the petitioners lands from Disputed Register and also direct the respondent authorities to take necessary steps on the issue of removal of the digital signature of the 4^th Respondent in the digital records and to upload the signature of the 4^th Respondent in the Webland forthwith and to pass

¶21

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶22

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 direct the 4^th respondent to consider the representations dt.07.08.2024 for granting permission to the 5^th respondent for digital sign for the lands to an extent of Ac.5.00 cents in Survey No. 194/1B1, Ac.1.10 cents in Sy. No.194/182 and Ac.3.90 cents in Sy.No.194/2B1 of Budidhapadu village, Gudur Mandal, Kurnool District is pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶24

1.G SEKHAR REDDY

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶26

1.GP FOR REVENUE

¶27

The Court made the following:

¶28

3

¶29

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO. 7986 of 2025

¶30

ORDER:

¶31

The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

¶32

“…to issue a writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the action of the respondents more particularly the 2^nd respondent in not removing the petitioners lands in Survey No.194/1B1 admeasuring Ac.5.00 cents, Sy.No.194/182 admeasuring Ac.1.10 cents and in Sy.No.194/2B1 admeasuring Ac.3.90 cents Budidhapadu village, Gudur Mandal, Kurnool District from the dispute register and also the action of the 4^th respondent in not uploading his removed digital signature on the land of the petitioners in the Web-Land Adangals/Records (Revenue Records) as illegal, arbitrary, violation of Article 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and contrary to the provisions of the ROR Act, 1971 and consequently direct the 2^nd respondent to remove the petitioners lands from Disputed Register and also direct the respondent authorities to take necessary steps on the issue of removal of the digital signature of the 4^th Respondent in the digital records and to upload the signature of the 4^th Respondent in the Webland forthwith and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deems fit just and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

¶33

It is the case of the petitioners herein that the Commissioner of Appeals, office of the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, vide proceeding, dated 01.12.2022, has allowed the appeal directing the respondents herein to process the case of the petitioners positively for grant of the lands earlier sanctioned to the petitioners through D-pattas afresh following the due process of law.

¶34

Basing on the said order, the 3^rd respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer has addressed a letter to the 2^nd respondent/District Collector vide Rc.F/129/2024, dated 24.01.2024 seeking permission for sanction

¶35

4

¶36

of lands to the petitioners and also to grant permission to remove the lands admeasuring Ac.1.10 cents in Survey No.194/B2, Ac.3.90 cents in Survey No.194/2B1 and Ac.5.00 cents in Survey No.194/1B1 of Budidhapadu Village of Gudur Mandal, Kurnool District from the Dispute Register.

¶37

Despite the letter addressed by the 3^rd respondent, the 2^nd respondent showed lethargy regarding to remove the subject lands from the dispute register and in uploading the digital signature of the Tahsildar. Hence, the present writ petition.

¶38

The learned Assistant Government Pleader has placed the written instructions addressed by the Tahsildar, Gudur Mandal, vide proceedings in Rc.B/134/2011, dated 24.07.2025 (part of the record) to the office of the Government Pleader for Revenue, which emphasises that the subject lands of the petitioners have not been placed in the dispute register and the said allegation is false. The Digital Signature provision for re-surveyed Government Lands in Webland 2 adangal is currently disabled; as once the option is enabled the digital signature will be uploaded in webland 2 adangal system.

¶39

The Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Kamlakshi Finance Corpn. Ltd.¹ deliberately emphasized on the following:

¶40

“It cannot be too vehemently emphasized that it is of utmost importance that, in disposing of the quasi-judicial issues before them, revenue officers are bound by the decisions of the appellate

¶41

1 1992(1) SCC (Supp) 443=AIR 1992 SC 711

¶42

5

¶43

authorities. The order of the Appellate Collector is binding on the Assistant Collectors working within his jurisdiction and the order of the Tribunal is binding upon the Assistant Collectors and the Appellate Collectors who function under the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The principles of judicial discipline require that the orders of the higher appellate authorities should be followed unreservedly by the subordinate authorities. The mere fact that the order of the appellate authority is not „acceptable‟ to the Department in itself an objectionable phrase and is the subject matter of an appeal can furnish no ground for not following it unless its operation has been suspended by a competent Court. If this healthy rule is not followed, the result will only be undue harassment to assesses and chaos in administration of tax laws.”

¶44

In CIT v. Ralson Industries Ltd.² and in Bhopal Sugar Industries v. Income Tax Officer, Bhopal³ cases, it is stated that when an order is passed by a higher authority, the lower authority is bound thereby keeping in view the principles of judicial discipline.

¶45

In the teeth of the above judgments and the assertions made in the written instructions dated 24.07.2025, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition at the admission stage directing the concerned respondent to remove the subject property of the writ petition from the dispute register and should be uploaded in webland 2 adangal system as expeditiously as possible. It goes without saying that the task must be completed within three months from the date of receipt of the order.

¶46