WP/8810/2016 of Pothireddy Subba Reddy, S/o. P. Bhaskar Reddy, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Principal on 31 December 2024

1. State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Principal, Secretary to Government,Revenue, Secretariat, Hyderabad.Revenue, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

5. Konda Ramakrishna Reddy, S/o. Late Konda Sesha Reddy, R/o. KapuStreet, Porumamilla Town, Y.S.R. District.Street, Porumamilla Town, Y.S.R. District.

...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that inthe circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court maybe pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly onein thenatureof WRITOFMANDAMUSdeclaringtheactionofthe3rdRespondent in issuing sanction proceedings in Ref.B/168/2015,[Dt;][ 09-10-]2015, sub dividing Sy. No. 993 into 993/ 1 & 2. of Rangasamudram village,Porumamilla Mandal, Y.S.R. District, though sub division has taken placeearlier Dt: 10-11-1979 as illegal and se aside the same and consequentlydirect the3'”'^ Respondent no to disturb the earlier sub division 993/1to993/1in the revenue records.

i*

/ /

l,A, NO:1 OF 2016(WPMP. NO: 11152 OF 2016)

Petition under Section151 CPC praying thatin the[circumstances]stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may bepleased to suspend the proceedings of the 3'^ Respondent[issued]in RefB/168/2015, dt. 9-10-2015, subdividing Sy. No. 993 into 993/1 & 2, and[ its]consequential proceedings, pending disposal of the main writ petition.

lA NO: 1 OF 2018

Between:

Konda Ramakrishna Reddy, S/o. Late Konda Sesha Reddy, R/o. Kapu StreetPorumamilla Town, Y.S.R. District.

...PETITIONER/PETITIONER/5'‘’ RESPONDENT

AND

1. State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Principal, Secretary to Government,Revenue, Secretariat, Hyderabad.Revenue, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

5. Pothireddy Subba Reddy, S/o. P. Bhaskar Reddy, Aged about 44 Years,R/o. Kapu Street, Porumamilla Town & Mandal, Y.S.R.[District.]R/o. Kapu Street, Porumamilla Town & Mandal, Y.S.R.[District.]

...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the[circumstances]stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may bepleased to vacate the interim order passed in WP.MP.No.11152/2016inWP.No. 8810/2016 dated 17.03.2016.

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

Between:

1. State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Principal, Secretary[to][ Government]Revenue, Secretariat, Hyderabad.Revenue, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

ff

...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 1 to 3AND

1. Pothireddy Subba Reddy, S/o. P. Bhaskar Reddy, Aged[about] 44[ Years,]R/o. Kapu Street, Porumamilla Town & Mandal, Y.S.R.District.R/o. Kapu Street, Porumamilla Town & Mandal, Y.S.R.District.

...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER

2. The Sub-Registrar, Badvel, YSR Kadapa.

3. Konda Ramakrishna Reddy, S/o. Late Konda Sesha Reddy, R/o. KapuStreet, Porumamilla Town, Y.S.R. District.Street, Porumamilla Town, Y.S.R. District.

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 4 and 5

(RR 2 and 3 are not necessary parties)

Petition under Section151 CPC praying thatin the[circumstances]stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may bepleased to vacate the interim order granted on 17.03.2016in WPMP. No.11152 of 2016 in W.P No. 8810 of 2016.

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI ABHAY SIDDHANTH, FORSRI V. R. REDDY KOWURI

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: SRI SIVA PRASAD,ASST.GP FOR REVENUE

Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI M.D. SALEEM,SRI P. RAVI KIRAN

The Court made the following: ORDER

J,f

APHC010261432016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESHAT AMARAVATI(Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3209]

TUESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYAWRIT PETITION NO: 8810/2016

Between:

Pothireddy Subba Reddy, S/o. P. Bhaskar Reddy,...PETITIONER

AND

State Of Andhra Pradesh Rep By Its Principal...RESPONDENT(S)and Othersand Others Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. VR REDDY KOWURI

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR REVENUE (AP)

2. P RAVI KIRAN

3. MD SALEEM

The Court made the following order:

Heard Mr. Abhay Siddhanth, learned counsel representinglearned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. M.D. Saleem,[learned][ counsel]for the5^^ respondent andMr.SivaPrasad,learnedAssistantGovernment Pleader appearing for the respondent Nos.1[to][ 4.]

2. The present writ petition is filed seeking to declare[the action]ofthe3rdrespondentinissuingsanctionproceedingsinRef.B/168/2015dated09.10.2015,subdividingSy.No.993into993/1 & 2 of Rangasamudram Village, Porumamilla Mandal,[Y.S.R.]District, as illegal and arbitrary, since the sub division had alreadytaken place earlier on 10.11.1979.ofthe3rdrespondentinissuingsanctionproceedingsinRef.B/168/2015dated09.10.2015,subdividingSy.No.993into993/1 & 2 of Rangasamudram Village, Porumamilla Mandal,[Y.S.R.]District, as illegal and arbitrary, since the sub division had alreadytaken place earlier on 10.11.1979.

3. Learned counselfor the petitioner submits that thelandinSy.No.993ofRangasudramVillage,PorumamillaMandal,Y.S.R.District compromisesof anextent of Ac.19.16centswassubdividedintheyear1979andanextentofAc.5.85centspossessed by Bayana Sesha Reddy fell in 993/1, 993/4 & 993/5. Byvirtue of registered will deed executed by the said Bayana SeshaReddy, the petitioner and his family members became[the][ owners]and possessors of the same. The 5'*^ respondent herein[has][ been]making a claim relating to an extent of Ac.0.29 centsin which thepetitioner along withhis family members are in possession.In theyear 1979 the then Tahsildari.e. the3^'^ respondenthereinhadorderedsubdivisionvideproceedingsdated10.11.1979andpursuant to the SY.No.993 was sub divided into 993/1 to[ 5.] The 5threspondent is fully aware of the sub division. He further[submits][ that]5“^ respondent suppressing several factual aspects[with][ reference][ to]the said property earlier filed O.S.No.37 of 1982 against Mr. BayanaSesha Reddy for declaration of title and as the same was dismissed,filed A.S.No.7 of 1985 andit was also dismissed. Subsequently,[the]5“^ respondent again filed O.S.No.60 of 1986 on thefileoftheDistrict Munsif, Badvel with the same prayer, which[was][ likewise]dismissed and the appeal A.S.No.9 of 90 was also dismissed.[As][ the]5*^^ respondent could not succeed, he filed S.A.No.713[of][ 1994][ and]Sy.No.993ofRangasudramVillage,PorumamillaMandal,Y.S.R.District compromisesof anextent of Ac.19.16centswassubdividedintheyear1979andanextentofAc.5.85centspossessed by Bayana Sesha Reddy fell in 993/1, 993/4 & 993/5. Byvirtue of registered will deed executed by the said Bayana SeshaReddy, the petitioner and his family members became[the][ owners]and possessors of the same. The 5'*^ respondent herein[has][ been]making a claim relating to an extent of Ac.0.29 centsin which thepetitioner along withhis family members are in possession.In theyear 1979 the then Tahsildari.e. the3^'^ respondenthereinhadorderedsubdivisionvideproceedingsdated10.11.1979andpursuant to the SY.No.993 was sub divided into 993/1 to[ 5.] The 5threspondent is fully aware of the sub division. He further[submits][ that]5“^ respondent suppressing several factual aspects[with][ reference][ to]the said property earlier filed O.S.No.37 of 1982 against Mr. BayanaSesha Reddy for declaration of title and as the same was dismissed,filed A.S.No.7 of 1985 andit was also dismissed. Subsequently,[the]5“^ respondent again filed O.S.No.60 of 1986 on thefileoftheDistrict Munsif, Badvel with the same prayer, which[was][ likewise]dismissed and the appeal A.S.No.9 of 90 was also dismissed.[As][ the]5*^^ respondent could not succeed, he filed S.A.No.713[of][ 1994][ and]

r

r

the same was dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court vide[order][ dated]02.8.2006. He submits that despite successive dismissals[of suits]and having known about the sub division of Sy.No.993 to 993/1 to 5,the S**" respondent suppressing the material facts[filed][ O.S.No.52][ of]2010 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Badvel, seeking[a][ direction][ to]the official respondents herein to make subdivision of Sy. No. 993.While stating that the petitioner herein has not been impleaded asparty defendantin the said suit, learned counsel for the petitionersubmits that the S'*" respondent herein obtained exparte decree, thaton the basis of the same, the 5*^ respondent got subdivision[of][ the]subject matter property though the sub division of Sy. No. 993 tookplace in the year 1979 and the 3^^^ respondent issued the impugnedproceedingswithoutlookingintoconsiderationallthesecrucialaspects though the petitioner submitted objections[for][ sub][ -][ division.]4.As the impugned proceedings were obtained suppressing[the]facts, the learned counsel submits that the same is liable to be setaside. Drawing the attention of this Court to the material papers i.e.,pattadar pass books issuedin favour of therespondent,hesubmits that the very fact that an extent of Ac.1.96[cents][ is][ recorded]in Sy.No.993/2, even on the date of filing of O.S.No.52[of][ 2010would]clearly establish that there was a sub division earlier.

5. Whereas the learned counsel for the5*'^ respondent,[made]submissions onthe basisof the averments madein the counteraffidavit. Referring to the earlier suits filed by the 5^^ respondent,learned counsel sought to impress upon that the relief sought in theearlier suits and relief sought in the O.S.No.52 of[2010][ are][ different]and the findings recorded in the earlier suits would[not][ come][ in][ the]wayofthe5'^espondentinseekingsubdivisionofSy.No.993 bysubmissions onthe basisof the averments madein the counteraffidavit. Referring to the earlier suits filed by the 5^^ respondent,learned counsel sought to impress upon that the relief sought in theearlier suits and relief sought in the O.S.No.52 of[2010][ are][ different]and the findings recorded in the earlier suits would[not][ come][ in][ the]wayofthe5'^espondentinseekingsubdivisionofSy.No.993 by filing a separate suit. He also submits that the writ petitioner and hisfamily members filed a suit vide O.S.No.7 of 2016 seeking[to][ declare]the judgment and decree in O.S.No.52 of 2010 a nullity[and][ then][ the]present writ petition much subsequent to the filing[of][ the][ said][ suit,][ is]not maintainable. He therefore seeks dismissal of the writ petition.

Conclusion

6. This Court has considered the submissions made.It is notindispute that a comprehensive suit vide O.S.No.7of[2016]isfiledseeking to declare the judgment and decreein O.S.No.52[of][ 2010]which is the basis for issuance of the proceedings impugned and thesameis pending adjudication. Therefore,in spite of going into themerits of the present case, this Court deems fit to dispose of the writpetition,leavingit opento thepartiesto agitate their respectiveclaims in O.S.No.7 of 2016. Asit is noted that an interim order wasgranted at the time of admission in the year 2016 and[the][ same]isstill in force, pending disposal of O.S.No.7 of 2016,[no][ further][ action]pursuant to the proceedingsin Ref.B/168/2015 dated 09.10.2015,issued by the 3'"'^ respondent, shall be taken. Asit is the suit of theyear 2016,this Court has reasontobelieve that theconcernedlearned Junior Civil Judge will take steps for expeditious disposal ofthe suit, in accordance with law.dispute that a comprehensive suit vide O.S.No.7of[2016]isfiledseeking to declare the judgment and decreein O.S.No.52[of][ 2010]which is the basis for issuance of the proceedings impugned and thesameis pending adjudication. Therefore,in spite of going into themerits of the present case, this Court deems fit to dispose of the writpetition,leavingit opento thepartiesto agitate their respectiveclaims in O.S.No.7 of 2016. Asit is noted that an interim order wasgranted at the time of admission in the year 2016 and[the][ same]isstill in force, pending disposal of O.S.No.7 of 2016,[no][ further][ action]pursuant to the proceedingsin Ref.B/168/2015 dated 09.10.2015,issued by the 3'"'^ respondent, shall be taken. Asit is the suit of theyear 2016,this Court has reasontobelieve that theconcernedlearned Junior Civil Judge will take steps for expeditious disposal ofthe suit, in accordance with law.

7. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There[shall][ be][ no]order as to costs.order as to costs.

As a sequel, all pending applications shall also stand[closed.]

//TRUE COPY//

SD/- K. TATA RAODEPUTY REGISTRAR

To,

SECmNOFFICER

1. The Principal, Secretary to Government, Revenue,[State][ of][ Andhra]Pradesh Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur[District.]Pradesh Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur[District.]

5. One CC to Sri V. R. Reddy Kovvuri, Advocate [OPUC]

6. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]7. One CC to Sri Md. Saleem, Advocate (OPUC)8.One CC to Sri P. Ravi Kiran, Advocate [OPUC]7. One CC to Sri Md. Saleem, Advocate (OPUC)8.One CC to Sri P. Ravi Kiran, Advocate [OPUC]

9. Three C.D. Copies.

Cnr

HIGH COURT

DATED:31/12/2024

ORDERWP.No.8810 Of 2016

DISPOSING OF THE W.P.WITHOUT COSTS

=2 0 JAN 2C:jJ^. Current Section* ^^^NsiSfSPATCVA^^!.^