Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/18857/2016 of Chintapalli Sreenivasa Prasad Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 16 March 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH TUESDAY, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY WRIT PETITION NO: Between: 1. CHINTAPALLI SREENIVASA PRASAD, S/O LATE SRI APPA RAO AGE 66 YRS NO COLONY VISAKHAPATNAM 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS
APHC010429862016
IN TH
TUESDAY,
TWO
THE HONOURABLE SR
WR
Between:
1. CHINTAPALLI SRE
AGE 66 YRS NO
COLONY VISAKHA
1. THE STATE OF
PRINCIPAL
SEC
HYDERABAD.
2. THE DISTRICT CO
Petition under Articl
circumstances stated in
pleased to issue appropr
the nature of Writ of M
Respondent No 2,to to h
dt 29-04-2015 passed in
Institution of Lokayukta f
per law and pass
IA NO: 1 OF 2016 (WPM
Petition under Secti
in the affidavit filed in sup
E HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRAD
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MARC
O THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
RI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVEND
RIT PETITION NO: 18857/2016
EENIVASA PRASAD, S/O LATE SR
O -24;MIG -I D.NO. 1-74-29, SEC
APATNAM-530017
AND
ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESEN
CRETARY
FOR
REVENUE
S
LLECTAR, VISHKAPATNAM DISTRI
...RES
le 226 of the Constitution of India pra
the affidavit filed therewith, the High
riate Writ, direction, or order more pa
Mandamus or any other Writ or or
have implemented the order of the Ho
n Complaint ratan-3577 / 2012 /B l on
for Andhra Pradesh and Telangana
MP 23145 OF 2016
on 151 CPC praying that in the circum
pport of the petition, the High Court ma DESH
CH
DRANATH ROY
RI APPA RAO
TAR -3, MVP
...PETITIONER
NTED BY ITS
SECRETARIAT
ICT
SPONDENT(S):
aying that in the
h Court may be
articularly one in
rder/direction to
on’ble Lokayukta
n the File of the
and dispose as
mstances stated
ay be pleased to
CMR,J
W.P.No.18857 of 2016
fix an early date for final hearing and Pass such further and other orders ad may be found expedient under the circumstances of the case.
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1.VARREY VENKATA NAGA VISHNU TEJA
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.GP FOR ASSIGNMENT (AP)
2.GP FOR REVENUE (AP)
CMR,J
W.P.No.18857 of 2016
The Court made the following:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
This writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India is filed seeking direction to respondent No.2-the District Collector, Visakhapatnam District, to implement the order dated 29.04.2015 of the Lokayukta passed in complaint No.3577/2012/B1.
2. Heard Mr. Varrey Venkata Naga Vishnu Teja, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents.
3. Briefly stated, it is the case of the writ petitioner that his mother by name Chintapalli Satya Gunavathi Devi is a political sufferer and she is a freedom fighter and she is the follower of Mahatma Gandhi and she has participated in various freedom and swadeshi movements. Therefore, considering her services rendered to the nation that the D-form patta was issued to her, assigning Ac.4.98 cents of land covered by survey Nos.60/2, 61/1 and 61/3 of survey No.48 at Pothina Mallayya Palem in Visakhapatnam District in the year 1961 and since then she has been in possession and enjoyment of the said land and her name is incorporated in the revenue records and she is shown as the pattadar in the adangal and other revenue records till the year 1993. It is also stated that she has been paying the cist payable for the said land.
4. While so, it is stated that without cancelling the said patta issued in favour of the mother of the petitioner by the competent authority that an effort is made by the revenue authorities to take possession of the said land from the petitioner, who is enjoying the said land by inheritance after death of his mother, who is the original assignee and to deliver possession of the same to another person. Therefore, the petitioner has approached the then Lokayukta of the combined State of Andhra Pradesh. The Lokayukta by its order dated 29.04.2015 held that the Joint Collector, Visakhapatnam submitted a report stating that there is no record to show that assignment has been made. But,
CMR,J W.P.No.18857 of 2016
held that it is evident from the material papers produced by the complainant that his mother has been assigned with the land and the original produced by him has been perused. Therefore, the Lokayukta directed the Tahsildar, Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal to initiate proceedings under the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (Act 9 of 1977) (for short, A.P. Act 9 of 1977) by issuing the notice to both the parties and to conduct an enquiry and then pass orders in accordance with the provisions of the A.P. Act 9 of 1977 within a period of six months from date of receipt of copy of the order and dispose of the said complaint accordingly.
5. Now the grievance of the writ petitioner is that no proceedings are initiated by the Tahsildar, as directed by the Lokayukta, within the time stipulated in the order. Therefore, the instant writ petition has been filed to implement the order of the Lokayukta.
6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, on instructions, would submit that there is no record showing that the land was assigned to the mother of the writ petitioner and as such, it cannot be said that the land was assigned to the mother of the writ petitioner under the D-Patta.
7. It is already noticed supra, while narrating the facts of the case that the Lokayukta has clearly held in its orders that even though it is stated in the report of the Joint Collector that there is no record to show that the assignment has been made, as per the material papers produced by the complainant, who is the writ petitioner herein that it is evident that his mother has been assigned with the land and the original produced by him was perused. Further, according to the writ petitioner, the name of his mother was shown as pattadar in all the revenue records and in the adangal from the year 1961 when the patta was given and the land was assigned, till the year 1993 continuously. The said fact cannot be now ignored. When her name was shown in the adangal as pattadar of the said land, it lends support to the contention of the petitioner and proves that the land was assigned to his mother under a Patta.
CMR,J W.P.No.18857 of 2016
Although the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue contended that there is a doubt regarding genuineness of the patta produced by the petitioner before the Lokayukta, the Tahsildar ought to have verified the genuineness of the same while initiating proceedings in terms of the direction given by the Lokayukta. But, without initiating any proceedings under the A.P. Act 9 of 1977 and without implementing the order of Lokayukta, the said direction has been completely ignored.
8. Therefore, in the said facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is allowed. The 2nd respondent-District Collector, Visakhapatnam shall direct the Tahsildar, Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal to initiate proceedings, as ordered by the Lokyukta in its order dated 29.04.2015. Both the District Collector, Visakhapatnam and the Tahsildar, Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal shall forthwith implement the order dated 29.04.2015 of the Lokayukta in its true spirit within a period of four weeks from date of receipt of copy of this order. If necessary, survey of land is to be conducted. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
Date: 17.03.2026 MDP