WRIT PETITION 15417 of 2020 on 26 October 1971

1. Sri Shaik Khader Basha, S/o. Late Mohd. Ghouse, Aged 75 years, occ.Cultivation,Chittecherlavillage,ChinnagottigalluMandal,ChittoorDistrict.Cultivation,Chittecherlavillage,ChinnagottigalluMandal,ChittoorDistrict.

2. Sri Shaik Basha Mohiddin, S/o. Mohd. Ghouse, Aged 70 years, Occ.Cultivation,Chittecherlavillage,ChinnagottigalluMandal,ChittoorDistrict.Cultivation,Chittecherlavillage,ChinnagottigalluMandal,ChittoorDistrict.

...PETITIONERS

AND

1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by the Principal SecretaryGovernmentof Andhra Pradesh, Revenue Department, VelagapudiAmaravathi.Governmentof Andhra Pradesh, Revenue Department, VelagapudiAmaravathi.

2. The District Collector, Chittoor.

3. The Sub Collector, Madanapalle, Chittoor District.

4. The Tahsildar, Chinnagottigallu, Chittoor District

...RESPONDENTS

Pstition undsr ArticI© 226 of the Constitution of India is filed prayingthatin the circumstances statedin the affidavit filed therewith, the HighCourt may be pleased to pass appropriate order or orders more one in thenature of a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents inthreatening to dispossess the petitioners from their peaceful possession andenjoyment of the land to an extent of Ac.4.50 cents in S.No.2675/1 andanextentofAc.3.50centsinS.No.2675/2ofChittecherlavillage,Chinnagottigallu Mandal, Chittoor District without there being any notice ororderasillegal,arbitrary,biased,unconstitutionalandultraviresandconsequently direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioners fromtheir peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land to an extent of Ac.4.50centsin S.No.2675/1 and an extent of Ac. 3.50 centsin S.No.2675/2ofChittecherla village, Chinnagottigallu Mandal, Chittoor District.

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

PetitionunderSection151CPCisfiledprayingthatinthecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the HighCourt may be pleased to direct the respondents not to dispossessthepetitioners from their peaceful possession and enjoyment[of][ the][ land][ to]anextent of Ac.4.50 cents in S.No.2675/1 and an extent of Ac. 3.50 centsinS.No.2675/2ofChittecherlavillage,ChinnagottigalluMandal,ChittoorDistrict.

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI SURESH KUMAR REDDY KALAVA

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE

The Court made the following:

/

t

APHC010233842020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH•IAT AMARAVATI[3505](Special Original Jurisdiction)

FRIDAY. THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF MARCHTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR

WRIT PETITION NO: 15417/2020

Between:

...PETITIONER(S)

Sri Shaik Khader Basha and Others

AND

...RESPONDENT(S)

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. SURESH KUMAR REDDY KALAVA

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR REVENUE

The Court made the following order:

The petitioners claim that the 4*^ respondent granted[DKT]pattavideproceedingsDKT.No.AMNo.73/1400andAMNo.72/4/1400, dated 30.10.1990, for an extent of[4.50 cents]inSy.No.2675/1andanextentof3.50centsinSy.No.2675/2respectivelyatChittecherlaVillage,ChinnagottigalluMandal,Chittoor District.It is further case of the petitioners[that][ from][ the][ date]ofassignment,theyhavebeeninpeacefulpossessionandenjoyment of the subject land without any interruption[from][ anybody,]and they have also obtained electricity connection[for][ conducting]agricultural operations. As on the date of filing of[the][ writ][ petition,]there was standing paddy crop in the subject lands.It is their furthercase that the ancestors of the petitioners were in possession of thesubject lands for the past seven decades, and in view[of][ the][ same,]thefatherof thepetitioners madeanapplicationforgrantofassignment during the year 1967.In pursuance thereto, the 2ndrespondentissuedinstructionstothe4*^ respondent on 22.01.1967, to consider the application[filed][ by][ the]father of the petitioners and take necessary actionsin the matter.Thereafter,the4”^respondentinspectedthesubjectlandson29.12.1967, and reported that though the land classified[as ‘Gunta]Poramboke’, the same is fit for cultivation and found No ObjectionTransfer of the subject lands into Assessed Waste Dry (AWD) and accordingly,recommendedforchangeofclassification,byproceedings dated 03.10.1971, forwarded the recommendationtothe3'^ respondent. Pursuant there to, the3^'^ respondentsentproposal dated 26.10.1971 to the 2'^'" respondent. Thereafter, the 2^'"respondent after enquiry changed the classification of the subjectlandsby proceedingsdated11.11.1971.Itisthe caseofthepetitioners that, after the demise of their father, the petitionersweregranted DKT patta over the subject lands on 30.10.1990.Whilethings stood thus, the 4*^ respondent, along with his staff, inspectedthe lands in dispute and directed the petitioners not to enter into thesame, as the lands are classified as ‘Gunta Poramboke’ in revenuerecords. In turn, the petitioners informed the 4*^ respondent that theclassification of the subject lands were changed long ago and DKTpatta was issued to them. Despite the same, the 4*^ respondentcontinuedtointerferewiththepossessionof thepetitioners.Questioning the said action of the respondents, thepetitionersapproached this Court by filing the present Writ Petition.

2. On the other hand, the 4*^ respondent-Tahsildar filed counteraffidavit stating that total extents of Sy.No.2675is Ac. 12.02 centsand the sameis classified as ‘Gunta Poramboke’in the revenuerecords.Itisfurtheraverredinthecounteraffidavitthatthepetitioners were never granted assignment over the lands in disputeaffidavit stating that total extents of Sy.No.2675is Ac. 12.02 centsand the sameis classified as ‘Gunta Poramboke’in the revenuerecords.Itisfurtheraverredinthecounteraffidavitthatthepetitioners were never granted assignment over the lands in dispute

and the alleged pattas filed by the petitioners along[with][ the]writpetitionareforgedandbogus.Thoughthepetitionersareinpossession of the lands in dispute, the same will not confer any rightto the petitioners, inasmuch they are in illegal occupation. Moreover,it is contended that, the petitioners did not place any order passedby the competent authority changing the classification of the lands,and in the absence of the same, the contention of the petitioners isliable to be rejected.It is further stated that, the petitioners tried toencroach upon the subject lands and the same was prevented bythe revenue authorities.Itis further averredin the counter affidavitthatthesubjectlandsarecontinuouslyshowingas‘GuntaPoramboke’inrevenuerecordsandatthatjuncture,the4threspondent issued notice on 04.09.2020, calling upon the petitionerstoattendenquiryon11.09.2020,andtoproduceavailabledocumentary evidencein respect of their claim. Accordingly,thepetitioners attended for enquiry and submitted DKT patta, alleged tohave been issued in their favour along with other documents.[On][ a]further perusal of the counter affidavit, the 4‘^ respondent[has][ stated]that the petitioners did not produce any documentary[evidence][ and]failedtoplacetheallegedcopyoftheorderchangingtheclassification of the land in dispute.It shows that, the 4“^ respondentmade contradictory statements in the counter affidavit.

3. Heardlearnedcounselforthepetitionersandlearned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue.

4. Perused the material available on record.

5.

5. It is the case of the petitioners that they were granted[DKT]patta during the year 1990, and they have been in continuous anduninterrupted possession of the subject lands. On the other hand,the4threspondentcontendedthatthesubject lands are classified as ‘Gunta Poramboke’in therevenuerecords, therefore, the question of issuance of DKT pattato thepetitioners doesriot arise and the alleged DKT patta filed by thepetitioners are nothing but forged and bogus. The petitioners[have]filed documents with regard to change of classification of lands fromGunta Poramboke to AWD. However, the same was denied the 4*^respondent. A notice dated 04.09.2020 was issued to the petitionersasking them to attend for an enquiry, whichis to be conductedon11.09.2020.Uponwhich,thepetitionerssubjectedthemselvesbefore the enquiry by producing the relevant documents along withDKT pattas. Thereafter, the 4‘^ respondent did not take any action inthe matter nor passed any orders. The petitioners have filed copiesof D-Form pattas issued in their favour along with the writ petition,apart from other inter se proceedings between the respondentsinrespect of the subject land. This court by order dated 01.09.2020, granted interim order of Status-Quo, and the same is subsisting tilltoday. In view of the above, this Court does not go[into][ the][ merits][ of]the matter in deciding the correctness or otherwise of the issuanceof D-Form pattas in favour of the petitioners.

6. In the light of the above facts and circumstances,[instead][ of]goingintothemeritsof thematter,thiscourtfeelsthatitisappropriatetodisposeofthewritpetition,directingthe4threspondenttoissue a freshnoticetothepetitionerscallingforobjections. Upon which, the petitioners are directed to submit theirobjections and thereafter, the 4*^ respondent shall pass appropriateorders in the matter after affording an opportunity of being heard tothe petitioners.goingintothemeritsof thematter,thiscourtfeelsthatitisappropriatetodisposeofthewritpetition,directingthe4threspondenttoissue a freshnoticetothepetitionerscallingforobjections. Upon which, the petitioners are directed to submit theirobjections and thereafter, the 4*^ respondent shall pass appropriateorders in the matter after affording an opportunity of being heard tothe petitioners.

7. With the above direction,the WritPetitionis disposedof.There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending,if any shallstand closed.

Sd/- G. HELA NAIDUASSISTANT REGISTRARp- ^SECTION OFFICER

//TRUE COPY//

To,

1. ThePrincipalSecretary,RevenueDepartment,StateofAndhraPradesh, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Velagapudi,[Amaravathi]Pradesh, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Velagapudi,[Amaravathi]

2. The District Collector, Chittoor.

3. The Sub Collector, Madanapalle. Chittoor District.

4. The Tahsildar, Chinnagottigallu, Chittoor District.

5. One CC to Sri Suresh Kumar Reddy Kalava, Advocate [OPUC]

6. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]

7. Three CD Copies

HIGH COURT

DATED;28/03/2025

ORDER

fS KNDiiSM 15 JUL 2025oCo3=SsDimnt

WP.No.15417of2020

THE WRIT PETITION IS DISPOSED OF WITHOUTCOSTS