Thota Hanumantha Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

THOTA HANUMANTHA RAO,, S/O LATE SIVARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURIST, R/O D.NO.7-9-LA, JAKKAVARI STREET, PERALA, CHIRALA MANDAL, BAPATIA DISTRICT - 523 157.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, , REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE (ASSIGNMENT) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522238.

¶13

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, BAPATLA DISTRICT, BAPATLA, ANDHRA PRADESH - 522101.

¶14

THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, APPELLATE AUTHORITY, CHIRALA REVENUE DIVISION, BAPATLA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 522101. (BEING THE AUTHORITY THAT PASSED THE IMPUGNED ORDER IN PROCDGS.RC.DT(KRRC)/526/2023, DT.25.01.2024)

¶15

THE TAHSILDAR, , VETAPALEM MANDAL, CHIRALA, BAPATLA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 522101.

¶16

AVULA JYOTHI, W/O AVULA RAMA RAO, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/O PANDILLAPALLI VILLAGE, VETAPALEM MANDAL, BAPATLA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 522101.

¶17

2

¶18

BKM,J W.P.No.12839 of 2026

¶19

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶20

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 tomay be pleased to issue writ or order or direction more particularly in the nature of writ of Certiorari, calling for the records in Procdgs.No.Rc.DT(KRRC)/526/2023 on the file of the 3rd Respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer, Chirala, and quash the impugned order dated 25.01.2024 in its entirety Consequently, restore and confirm the DK Patta No.84/1688 dated 31.03.1975 in the Petitioners favour for an extent of Ac.2.57 cents in Sy.No.252/1, Pandillapalli Village, Vetapalem Mandal, Bapatla District, directing the Revenue authorities to make appropriate entries in Revenue records and to issue/renew all Revenue documents in the Petitioners name forthwith and to pass such

¶21

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶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 may be pleased to dispense with the Certified Copy of the Procdgs. No.Rc.DT(KRRC)/526/2023 on the file of the 3rd Respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer, Chirala, dated 25.01.2024, above Writ Petition and pass such

¶23

IA NO: 2 OF 2026

¶24

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 may be pleased to grant an interim Stay of the impugned order dated 25.01.2024 in Procdgs.No. Rc.DT(KRRC)/526/2023, and restrain the Respondents 3 and 4 from conducting any de novo enquiry or passing any order adverse to the Petitioner pursuant to the impugned order pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass such

¶25

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶26

1.N RAVI PRASAD

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶28

1.GP FOR REVENUE

¶29

3

¶30

BKM,J W.P.No.12839 of 2026

¶31

The Court made the following Order:

¶32

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 4.

¶33

The issuance of notice to the 5^th respondent is dispensed with as no prejudice would cause to her even if it is disposed of in her absence.

¶34

This writ petition is filed questioning the order passed by the 3^rd respondent dated 25.01.2024, directing the 4^th respondent to conduct denova enquiry into the matter by issuing notices to all the concerned persons under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Assigned (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred as “the Act”) and the Rules made there-under by providing personal hearing to all the concerned persons.

¶35

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in fact the appeal was preferred by the petitioner only and the petitioner earlier gave representation to the authorities concerned bringing it to their notice that there was some fake registered documents for the subject land in an extent of Ac.2.57 cents in Sy.No.252-1. Basing upon the request of the petitioner herein, the 2^nd respondent also addressed a letter to the 4^th respondent dated 09.07.2021 to take necessary action under the said Act. The apprehension of the petitioner is that under the guise of implementation of the impugned orders of the 3^rd respondent dated 25.01.2024, the 4^th respondent may evict the

¶36

4

¶37

BKM,J W.P.No.12839 of 2026

¶38

petitioner herein from the subject land though he did not violated the conditions of assignment.

¶39

On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 4 submits that the impugned order of the 3^rd respondent dated 25.01.2024 is very clear to conduct denova enquiry by the 4^th respondent by providing personal hearing to all the parties concerned. If the petitioner submits his case before the said authority, the same will be considered, following the due procedure.

¶40

In view of the above said facts and circumstances, in pursuance of the impugned orders of the 3^rd respondent dated 25.01.2024, the petitioner is permitted to submit his case, enclosing all the necessary documents in support of his claim before the 4^th respondent within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. On receipt of such application/representation from the petitioner, the 4^th respondent shall proceed with the denova enquiry as directed by the 3^rd respondent dated 25.01.2024, giving due opportunity to all the parties concerned, including the petitioner and the 5^th respondent, upon verification of the records and the subject land, appropriate decision shall be taken on its own merits uninfluenced by any of the observations made by the 3^rd respondent dated 25.01.2024, appropriate orders shall be passed as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three (03) months thereafter. Pending the enquiry, there shall be an order

¶41

5

¶42

BKM,J

¶43

W.P.No.12839 of 2026

¶44

of status quo as on today to be maintained with respect to the subject land covered under the impugned order of the 3^rd respondent dated 25.01.2024.

¶45

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of. Interim order if any

¶46

deemed to have been vacated. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶47

As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶48

__________________________ JUSTICE B. KRISHNA MOHAN

¶49

05.05.2026 PGT

Thota Hanumantha Rao, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thota Hanumantha Rao, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Machha Lakshmi Devi Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Vankadara Chinna Chennappa Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Kasireddy Ramanamma Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Vallabhaneni Vamsi Mohan Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Shakeena Bee Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Guggula Raghavendra Reddy Vs the State of Ap