A.Govind Reddy Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

A.GOVIND REDDY, S/O. NARASIMHA REDDY AGED 40 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 9-18, MALKAPAURAM VILLAGE, GOTLUR GRAMA PANCHAYTHI, DHARMVARAM MANDAL, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT.

¶11

S/O. NARASIMHA REDDY, AGED 40 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 9-18, MALKAPAURAM VILLAGE, GOTLUR GRAMA PANCHAYTHI, DHARMVARAM MANDAL, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT.

¶12

...PETITIONER(S)

¶13

AND

¶14

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

¶15

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PUTTAPARTHI, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT.

¶16

THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, DHARMAVARAM. DHARMAVARAM MANDAL, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT.

¶17

THE THAHASILDHAR, DHANNAVARAM. DHARMAVARAM MANDAL, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT.

¶18

A SRINIVAS REDDY, S/O. A.NARASIMHA REDDY, AGED 55 YEARS, R/O. MALKAPAURAM VILLAGE, GOTLUR GRAMA PANCHAYTHI,

¶19

2

¶20

DHARMVARAM MANDAL, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT.

¶21

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶22

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 a Writ, order or directions, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the impugned proceedings D.Dis.398/2023/G dated 24.04.2023 passed by the 3rd respondent against the petitioners without there being any final order of the 4th respondent under section 5 of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 in respect of the agricultural land an extent of Ac.1.63 cents in Sy.No.30/2 in of Gotluru Village , Dharmavaram Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District, which is illegal, arbitrary, unjust, violative of provisions of ROR Act, Articles 14,19 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, against the law laid down by Honourable Division Bench of this Honourable Court and consequently set-aside the same, further directing the 4th respondent to not to delete the entries from the pattadhar pass books, title deed and web land records existing in the name of petitioners father and pass such

¶23

IA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶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 interim suspension impugned proceedings D.Dis.398/2023/G dated 24.04.2023 passed by the 3I'd respondent thereby directing the 4th respondent not to delete the entries from the pattadhar pass books, title deed and web land records existing in the name of petitioners father A. Narasimha Reddy, S/o.Peddi Reddy in respect of agricultural land an extent of Ac.1.63 cents in Sy.No.30/2 in of Gotluru Village , Dharmavaram Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District and pass such

¶25

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶26

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 vacate the interim order dated 2^.0^.2023 in W.P.No.14573 of 2023 and dismiss the writ petition and pass

¶27

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶28

3

¶29

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 vacate the interim order passed in I.A.No.1 of 2023 Dt 21.06.2023 in W.P No. 14573 of 2023 and pass

¶30

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶31

1.MARELLA RADHA

¶32

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶33

1.BANDI SRIHARI

¶34

2.GP FOR REVENUE

¶35

The Court made the following:

¶36

4

¶37

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

¶38

WRIT PETITION No.14573 OF 2023

¶39

ORDER:

¶40

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

¶41

“… to issue a Writ, order or directions, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the impugned proceedings D.Dis.398/2023/G dated 24.04.2023 passed by the 3^rd respondent against the petitioners without there being any final order of the 4^th respondent under section 5 of the A.P.Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 in respect of the agricultural land an extent of Ac.1.63 cents in Sy.No.30/2 in Gotluru Village, Dharmavaram Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District, which is illegal, arbitrary, unjust, violative of provisions of ROR Act, Articles 14, 19 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, against the law laid down by Honourable Division Bench of this Honourable Court and consequently setaside the same, further directing the 4^th respondent to not to delete the entries from the pattadhar pass books, title deed and web land records existing in the name of petitioners father and pass such other order or orders…”

¶42

The short grievance of the petitioners is that on an application filed by the 5^th respondent seeking deletion of entries made in favour of the petitioners’ father, the 4^th respondent-Tahsildar, Dharmavaram, has sent a proposal to the 3^rd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmavaram, for deletion of online entries made in favour of the petitioner’s father for the land admeasuring Ac.1.63 cents in Sy.No.30/2 of Gotluru Village fields, Dharmavaram Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District. The 3^rd respondent vide

¶43

5

¶44

impugned proceedings, dated 24.04.2023, ordered deletion of the entries from the pattadar passbooks, title deeds and web-land records. Assailing the said proceedings, the present writ petition has been filed on the ground that it is unreasoned order and no opportunity of personal hearing was given to the petitioners before delivering the said proceedings.

¶45

Both the official and unofficial respondents have filed counter-affidavit asserting that consequent to receipt of the application submitted by the 5^th respondent, notices were issued to the petitioners’ father as well as to the 5^th respondent to appear before the Tahsildar, Dharmavaram, and to submit documents etc.,. Though ample opportunity was given to the petitioners’ father, he did not turn up for the enquiry. Accordingly, the Tahsildar forwarded proposals to the Revenue Divisional Officer, for deletion of entries made in favour of the petitioners’ father pertaining to the land admeasuring Ac.1.63 cents in Sy.No.30/2 of Gotluru Village, Dharmavaram Mandal.

¶46

Heard Smt. Marella Radha, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Sri Bandi Srihari, learned counsel for respondent No.5.

¶47

It is specifically asserted in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that the petitioners have attended for enquiry before the 4^th respondent and produced the documents to show that their father was issued pattadar passbook 25 years ago. The petitioners and their father have been in

¶48

6

¶49

continuous possession of the property for more than 50 years and the 5^th respondent has no right on the property. However, the respondents did not serve a copy of the complaint filed by the 5^th respondent. Thereafter, on repeated requests of the petitioners, the petitioners had provided a copy of impugned proceedings dated 24.04.2023.

¶50

On perusal of the said proceedings, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, no opportunity of personal hearing was afforded to the petitioners and the order lacks reasons. The writ petition is maintainable against the decision making process, not merely the decision itself. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the decision making process is vitiated for want of adherence to principles of natural justice, as the petitioners were not given any opportunity of hearing.

¶51

Therefore, the present Writ Petition is disposed of with following directions:

¶52

(a) The impugned proceedings, dated 24.04.2023, are hereby set aside.

¶53

(b) Both the petitioners and unofficial respondent No.5 are directed to appear before the 4^th respondent-Tahsildar, along with all relevant documents and file appropriate applications.

¶54

(c) On receipt thereof, the 4^th respondent is directed to examine the same, after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to both parties, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law and communicate the decision to the parties.

¶55

7

¶56

(d) There shall be no order as to costs.

¶57

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶58

__________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

¶59

Date: 03.02.2026

¶60

KBN