Kanderi Muna Swamy Vs T Vijaya

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent to present this Memorandum of Writ Appeal, being aggrieved by the order dated 29.01.2026 made in W.P. No. 13152 of 2026

¶12

Between:

¶13

KANDERI MUNA SWAMY, S/O. BATHI NAIDU, AGED 76 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, N M KANDRIGA, PENUMALLAM YERPEDU MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT

¶14

KANDERI MUNI KRISHNAMA NAIDU,, SI. BATHI NAIDU, AGED 73 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, GUDIMALLAM VILLAGE AND MANDAL, TIRUPATHI DISTRICT

¶15

B NIRANJAN BABU, , S/O. LATE PURUSHOTHAM NAIDU AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/O. MITTAMEEDA KANDRIGA, PENUMALAM POST, YERPEDU MANDL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT

¶16

D SUBRAMANYAM,, S/O. KRISHNAMA NAIDU, AGED 63 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, R/O. N M KANDRIGA. PENUMALLAM YERPEDU MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT

¶17

D BHASKAR NAIDU, , S/O. KRISHNAMA NAIDU AGED 57 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, R/O. NM KANDRIGA, PENUMALLAM YERPEDU MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT

¶18

2

¶19

(RNT,J & PKC,J W.A.NO.821 OF 2026)

¶20

...APPELLANT(S)

¶21

AND

¶22

T VIJAYA, W/O T.BALAIAH, D. NO.5-25, MITTAMEEDA KANDRIGA COLONY GUDIMALLAM POST, YERPEDU MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT.

¶23

T GURAMMA, W/O T.MUNIKRISHNAIAH, D.NO.5-26, MITTAMEEDA KANDRIGA COLONY GUDIMALLAM POST, YERPEDU MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT.

¶24

A GANGAMMA, W/O A.MURALIKRISHNA, D.NO.5-27, MITTAMEEDA KANDRIGA COLONY GUDIMALLAM POST, YERPEDU MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT.

¶25

C UMA, W/O C.GOPI, D.NO.5-28, MITTAMEEDA KANDRIGA COLONY, GUDIMALLAM POST, YERPEDU MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT

¶26

S JEEVA, W/O S.RAJESH, D.NO.5-29, MITTAMEEDA KANDRIGA COLONY GUDIMALLAM POST, YERPEDU MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT.

¶27

T MUNEMMA, W/O T.NAGESWARA RAO, D.NO.5-31, MITTAMEEDA KANDRIGA COLONY GUDIMALLAM POST, YERPEDU MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT.

¶28

T BHAGYAMMA, W/O T.SUBRAMANYAM, D.NO.4-29, MITTAMEEDA KANDRIGA COLONY GUDIMALLAM POST, YERPEDU MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT.

¶29

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶30

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TIRUPATI DISTRICT, TIRUPATI. 10. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, SRIKALAHASTI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT.

¶31

THE TAHSILDAR, YERPEDU MANDAL TIRUPATI DISTRICT.

¶32

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶33

3

¶34

(RNT,J & PKC,J W.A.NO.821 OF 2026)

¶35

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶36

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 pleased to suspend the order dated 29.01.2026 made in W.P. No. 13152 of 2024 on the file of High Court of Andhra Pradesh and pass

¶37

Counsel for the Appellant(S):

¶38

1.PAWAN KUMAR MALAPATI

¶39

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶40

1.GP FOR REVENUE

¶41

2.MADHU SUDHAN P

¶42

The Court made the following:

¶43

4

¶44

(RNT,J & PKC,J W.A.NO.821 OF 2026)

¶45

JUDGMENT :- (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari)

¶46

Heard Sri Pavan Kumar Malapati, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri G.Madhu Sudhan, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 7/writ petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Revenue, appearing for respondents 8 to 11.

¶47

Initially, writ appellant No.1, being aggrieved by the action of the Tahsildar and the Mandal Surveyor, Yerpedu Mandal, Tirupati District, in interfering with his possession over the subject lands in Survey Nos.276/1, 276/1B, 277/7A, 277/7B, 277/8, 277/10 and 277/11, filed W.P.No.2707 of 2023, which was disposed of on 06.02.2023 with a direction to respondent Nos.2 to 5 therein to follow due process of law, if at all the subject lands were required for the purpose of providing house sites under any welfare schemes of the Government.

¶48

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that pattas were originally granted in favour of the writ appellants. However, subsequently, the authorities, without any authority of law, granted pattas in favour of respondent Nos.1 to 7, who thereafter started interfering with the possession of the writ appellants through their respective husbands.

¶49

He submits that the writ appellant No.1 instituted O.S.No.108 of 2023 on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil

¶50

5

¶51

(RNT,J & PKC,J W.A.NO.821 OF 2026)

¶52

Judge, Srikalahasti, seeking permanent injunction and some other consequential reliefs, on 06.04.2023, is still pending. Thereafter, respondent Nos.1 to 7 herein filed W.P.No.13152 of 2024 alleging that the official respondents were attempting to dispossess them from the subject lands without following due process of law. The pendency of O.S.No.108 of 2023 was not disclosed in the said writ petition. Though respondent No.2 herein was impleaded as defendant No.8 in the suit and the respective husbands of the other respondents were also parties to the suit as defendants, the pendency of the civil suit was suppressed. The present writ appellants were also not impleaded as parties to W.P.No.13152 of 2024. As such, they filed I.A.No.2 of 2024 seeking impleadment, which was allowed on 29.01.2026. On the very same day, the writ petition was disposed of by recording the statement made by the learned Government Pleader, on instructions, that the official respondents were not interfering with the possession of the writ petitioners.

¶53

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that respondent Nos.1 to 7 are now attempting to take advantage of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.13152 of 2024. According to him, the writ petition was filed by suppressing the material facts relating to the pendency of O.S.No.108 of 2023.

¶54

6

¶55

(RNT,J & PKC,J W.A.NO.821 OF 2026)

¶56

Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 7/writ petitioners submits that the civil suit was instituted against their respective husbands and that respondent Nos.1 to 7 were not parties thereto. However, he does not dispute that the pendency of the suit, which had already been instituted prior to the filing of W.P.No.13152 of 2024, was not disclosed in the writ petition.

¶57

We have considered the aforesaid submissions of the

¶58

learned counsels for the parties and perused the material on record.

¶59

A perusal of the record would show that respondent No.2 herein was also a party to O.S.No.108 of 2023 as defendant No.8. Therefore, it cannot be accepted that she was unaware of the pendency of the said suit.

¶60

We are of the view that, insofar as the impugned order is concerned, the learned Single Judge merely recorded the statement made by the learned Government Pleader, on instructions, that the official respondents were not interfering with the possession of the writ petitioners. To that extent, we do not find any illegality in the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

¶61

However, the fact remains that O.S.No.108 of 2023 was admittedly pending on the date on which W.P.No.13152 of 2024 came to be disposed of. The pendency of the said civil suit was not brought to

¶62

7

¶63

(RNT,J & PKC,J W.A.NO.821 OF 2026)

¶64

the notice of the learned Single Judge. At the same time, the order under appeal merely records the statement made on behalf of the official respondents and does not adjudicate upon the inter se rights of the private parties.

¶65

The dispute relating to the allotment, possession and entitlement over the subject lands is essentially a civil dispute between the private parties. Since the writ appellants have already availed the remedy of a civil suit, which is pending adjudication before the competent Civil Court, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order in the present writ appeal.

¶66

Nevertheless, it is clarified that the order passed in W.P.No.13152 of 2024 shall not be construed as recognising or affirming the rights of respondent Nos.1 to 7 against the writ appellants in respect of the subject property. The said order shall not confer any advantage upon either party in the adjudication of their inter se civil rights.

¶67

It is further made clear that all the parties shall be at liberty to prosecute O.S.No.108 of 2023 and raise all such pleas and contentions as may be available to them in law. The competent Civil Court shall decide the suit independently, on its own merits and in accordance with law, without being influenced by any observations made or the order passed in the writ proceedings.

¶68

8

¶69

(RNT,J & PKC,J W.A.NO.821 OF 2026)

¶70