WRIT PETITION 9587 of 2025 on 16 March 1986

ORDER:

1. The petitioners claim that they are the owners andpossessors of land admeasuring an extent of Ac.0.30[cents]inSy.No.9-75 of Rajapuram Village, Guppidipeta Grama Panchayat,Polaki Mandal, Srikakulam District, having purchased[the][ same]by virtue of unregistered sale deed dated 16.03.1986 from oneChitturi Nukayya. Subsequently, in the year 1992, the[vendor’s]sonraised a dispute against the saleof the propertytothepetitioners.However, they have compromised andsettledtheissue by paying another sale consideration to the vendor’s son byway of another unregistered sale deed dated 05.05.1992.[The]petitioners further claim that since the date of purchase, theyhave been in possession and enjoyment of the said property.It isfurther case of the petitioners that while so, the 4^*^ respondentcameto thesubjectland,alongwithhisstaff andtriedtodispossess the petitioners by stating that the petitioners[are]inunauthorized possession of the land and as the same[is] classifiedas Tank’in revenue records. The petitioners further[claim][ that]they are the bonafide purchasers of land for valid consideration,and since respondents No.4 and 5 are trying to interfere[with][ their]possessors of land admeasuring an extent of Ac.0.30[cents]inSy.No.9-75 of Rajapuram Village, Guppidipeta Grama Panchayat,Polaki Mandal, Srikakulam District, having purchased[the][ same]by virtue of unregistered sale deed dated 16.03.1986 from oneChitturi Nukayya. Subsequently, in the year 1992, the[vendor’s]sonraised a dispute against the saleof the propertytothepetitioners.However, they have compromised andsettledtheissue by paying another sale consideration to the vendor’s son byway of another unregistered sale deed dated 05.05.1992.[The]petitioners further claim that since the date of purchase, theyhave been in possession and enjoyment of the said property.It isfurther case of the petitioners that while so, the 4^*^ respondentcameto thesubjectland,alongwithhisstaff andtriedtodispossess the petitioners by stating that the petitioners[are]inunauthorized possession of the land and as the same[is] classifiedas Tank’in revenue records. The petitioners further[claim][ that]they are the bonafide purchasers of land for valid consideration,and since respondents No.4 and 5 are trying to interfere[with][ their]

possession without issuing any notice, the petitioners approachedthis Court by filing the writ petition.

2. On the other hand, Assistant Government Pleaderfor Revenue placed instructions dated 14.04.2025 furnished bythe 4**^ respondent. On perusal of the said instructions, it is statingthat the subject land is classified as Tank’ in the revenue recordsand the same was resumed from the petitioners and handed overtotheMandalParishadDevelopmentOfficer,Polaki,forreclamation under MGNREGS.Itis further contendedthat thepetitioners by suppressing the real facts of the case, approachedthis Court.for Revenue placed instructions dated 14.04.2025 furnished bythe 4**^ respondent. On perusal of the said instructions, it is statingthat the subject land is classified as Tank’ in the revenue recordsand the same was resumed from the petitioners and handed overtotheMandalParishadDevelopmentOfficer,Polaki,forreclamation under MGNREGS.Itis further contendedthat thepetitioners by suppressing the real facts of the case, approachedthis Court.

Conclusion

3. Heardlearnedcounselforthepetitionersandlearned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue.learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue.

4. Perused the material on record.

5. On perusal of the averments madein the affidavitfiled in support of the writ petition, it is clear that the petitioner haspurchased the subject property under unregistered sale[deeds.]Itis further stated in the affidavit that the vendor of the petitionerswas assigned the subject land.In support of the claimof thepetitioners, nothing is placed on record to show that their vendorfiled in support of the writ petition, it is clear that the petitioner haspurchased the subject property under unregistered sale[deeds.]Itis further stated in the affidavit that the vendor of the petitionerswas assigned the subject land.In support of the claimof thepetitioners, nothing is placed on record to show that their vendor was assigned the subject land, so as to claim that the petitionersarebonafidepurchasers.Further,onperusalof thecounteraffidavit,it is categorically stated that the subject[land][ is][ classified]astank.Itisfurtherstatednoassignment wasgrantedtoanybodyincludingthe vendor of the petitionersin respect ofsubjectlands.Itisfurther averredthatthepetitionershavepurchased the subject from the one of the encroachers[and][ the]samewill not confertitle on them.Itis further statedthat thesubject land was resumed from the petitioners and therefore[the]question of dispossessing the petitioners does not[arise.]

6. In view of the above, there are no merits in the writpetition, accordingly the writ petition is dismissed.[There][ shall][ be]no order as to costs.petition, accordingly the writ petition is dismissed.[There][ shall][ be]no order as to costs.

Asasequel,pendingapplications,ifany,shallstand closed.

To,

//TRUE COPY//

Sd/- P.VINOD KUMARASSISTANT REGISTRARSECTION OFFICER

TF

1. One CC to Sri Umasankar Lokanadham Advocate [OPUC]

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

3. Three CD Copies

HIGH COURT

DATED: 16/04/2025

ORDER

WP.No.9587 of 2025

c?I <3OS’0 7 OCr 2025Ps:/i

DISMISSING THE W.P., WITHOUT COSTS