P. Alisher Khan, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

P. ALISHER KHAN,, S/O LATE BASHA KHAN, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O BAALAGANGANAPALLI VILLAGE AND POST, G.D. NELLORE MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI-522237.

¶14

THE JOINT COLLECTOR, CHITTOOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT-517001.

¶15

THE TAHSILDAR, G. D. NELLORE, CHITTOOR DISTRICT-517125.

¶16

K YUVARAJULU, S/O K. KUPPAIAH, R/O BAALAGANGANAPALLI VILLAGE AND POST, G.D. NELLORE MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT-517421.

¶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 tomay be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the Proceedings in Roc.No.L5/e-479737/2024 by the 2nd Respondent in initiating cancellation of Petitioner Patta vide assignment bearing Patta No. 40/4/1408 in respect of agriculture land in Sy.No. 1226/1A an extent of Ac.3.70 cents situated in

¶19

2

¶20

BKM,J

¶21

W.P.No.8941 of 2026

¶22

Vinjam Revenue Village, G.D. Nellore Mandal, Chittoor District, after 27 years of granting patta by invoking BSO 15(18) is illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the settled principles of law, violation of the binding judgment of the Honble Division Bench reported in 1995 (3) ALT 330, against the Principles of Natural Justice and Article 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India consequently setaside the Proceedings in Roc.No.L5/e-479737/2024 by the 2nd Respondent in initiating cancellation of Petitioner Patta vide assignment bearing Patta No. 40/4/1408 in respect of agriculture land in Sy.No.1226/1A an extent of Ac.3.70 cents situated in Vinjam Revenue Village, G.D. Nellore Mandal, Chittoor District and pass such

¶23

IA NO: 1 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 to stay of all further proceedings of 2nd Respondent in Roc.No.L5/e4797 37/2024 dt. 19.03.2025 in respect of agriculture land in Sy.No. 1226/1A an extent of Ac.3.70 cents situated in Vinjam Revenue Village, G.D. Nellore Mandal, Chittoor District pending disposal of the Writ Petition and pass such

¶25

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶26

1.O UDAYA KUMAR

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶28

1.GP FOR REVENUE

¶29

3

¶30

BKM,J W.P.No.8941 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 3.

¶33

The issuance of notice to the 4^th respondent is dispensed with as no prejudice would cause to him even if it is disposed of in his absence.

¶34

This writ petition is filed questioning the notice issued by the 2^nd respondent dated 19.03.2025 alleging that the petitioner is in occupation of the Government land by obtaining fraudulent pattadar passbooks for the subject land and calling upon the petitioner to submit his explanation within seven (7) days.

¶35

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Form-IB ROR copies dated 10.04.2025 and 16.04.2025 disclose the name of the petitioner for the subject land in an extent of Ac.3.70 cents in Sy.No.1226/1A of Vinjam Revenue Village. He also refers to the Patta No.643 for the subject land, as it was issued by the 3^rd respondent by way of issuance of pattadar passbook and title deed. While so, after long lapse of time, the 2^nd respondent ought not have issued the impugned notice dated 19.03.2025.

¶36

On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader relying upon the written instructions of the 2^nd respondent dated 04.04.2026 submits that since the compliant was given by the 4^th respondent, the notices were issued to both the parties vide Roc.L4/310/2025 dated 13.12.2026,

¶37

4

¶38

BKM,J

¶39

W.P.No.8941 of 2026

¶40

02.03.2026, 12.03.2026, finally on 30.03.2026 to attend for enquiry on 04.04.2026. During the course of hearing on 04.04.2026, the 3^rd respondent submitted a report vide Roc.B/16/2025 dated 02.04.2026 stating that as per the ROR Form-I, the land is recorded in the name of K. Narsigadu i.e., the grandfather of the 4^th respondent herein (Yuvaraju) vide old Khata No.1140. Later on the name was rounded and the name of the petitioner i.e., Alisherkhan was entered and nature of occupation was mentioned as DKT, but no number is mentioned with 1-B khatha No.643 and the connected manual 1-B Register is not available. As per the web land history, the name of Alisherkhan was mutated on 20.08.2015 which is suspicious for the following reasons:

¶41

i. As per writ petitioner version, the DKT patta was issued in the year 1998 and the webland records were prepared from the year 2011. But the above entries were made on 20.08.2015.

¶42

ii. As per A-register the land in Sy.No.1226/1A extent of Ac.4.56 cents was sub divided as per 8A-115/41 i.e., during fasli 1341 and year 193132 and assigned. While so the name of K.Narsigadu is registered as pattadar as per old khatha No.1140 and entry made in ROR Form-1 Register.

¶43

iii. As per adangal for the fasli 1404-1406 (year 1994-96) originally entered the name of Narsigadu Khatha No.1140 as pattadar, later his name rounded and Alisherkhan was entered as DKT Patta No.40/4/1408

¶44

5

¶45

BKM,J W.P.No.8941 of 2026

¶46

dated 05.10.1998. When the adangal belongs to the year 1994-96 the entry of DKT patta of the year 1998 is found to be illegal.

¶47

iv. that there are no records available with regard to alienation of the lands from the original pattadar Narsigadu and as such the mutations made in favour of Alisherkhan are appears to be manipulated. Evidently, the petitioner has also not filed any documents in support of his claim.

¶48

At the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the 2^nd respondent requested the matter to be posted for further hearing on 25.04.2026 and orders will be passed by following the due procedure, giving ample opportunity to both the parties concerned.

¶49

In view of the above said facts and circumstances, recording the said instructions of the 2^nd respondent, dated 04.04.2026, the 2^nd respondent is directed to complete the necessary enquiry pursuant to the above said impugned notice dated 19.03.2025 strictly in accordance with law, by hearing all the parties concerned, including the petitioner and the unofficial respondent herein, giving due opportunity, upon verification of the records and the subject land, appropriate decision shall be taken on its own merits as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of this order. Pending the enquiry, there shall be an order of status quo as on today to be maintained with respect to the subject land. The petitioner is at liberty to raise all the grounds both on facts and law. The

¶50

6

¶51

BKM,J W.P.No.8941 of 2026

¶52

written instructions of the 2^nd respondent dated 04.04.2026 shall be made as part of the Court record.

¶53