Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Dara Satya Venkata Sundara Rama Murthy ... vs The Government Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. ... on 17 October, 2025
Author: R Raghunandan Rao
Bench: R Raghunandan Rao
APHC010068452014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3206]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 23436/2014
Between:
1. DARA SATYA VENKATA SUNDARA RAMA MURTHY SETTY, S/O
LATE GOPALAKRISHNA, AGED 67 YEARS
2. DARA SATYA VENKATA SIVA DURGA SURYA PRAKASHAM,, S/O.
LATE GOPALAKRISHNA, AGED 51 YEARS (BOTH ARE RESIDENTS
OF D.NO.6-8-49/2, M.G.ROAD, VIZIANAGARAM, VIZIANAGARAM
DISTRICT. REPRESENTED BY THEIR GPA HOLDER
B.RAMAKRISHNAIAH, S/O LATE SUBBARAYUDU, AGED 45 YEARS,
R/O FLAT NO.370 & 371, SUJANA ENCLAVE, K.P.H.B.COLONY,
HYDERABAD).
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH REP BY ITS
PRINCIPAL, SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT
BUILDINGS, HYDERABAD.
2. THE COLLECTOR, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT VISAKHAPATNAM.
3. THE JOINT COLLECTOR, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT
VISAKHAPATNAM.
4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, VISAKHAPATNAM DIVISION
VISAKHAPATNAM.
5. THE TAHSILDAR, VISAKHAPATNAM URBAN, VISAKHAPATNAM.
6. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, A.P.TOURISM DEVELOPMENT
2
RRR,J
W.P.No.23436 of 2014
CORPORATION LTD., VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM
DISTRICT
7. NADIMPALLI VENKATA RAMA RAJU, S/O LATE APPALA RAJU,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O APSEB COLONY,
SEETHAMMADHARA, VISAKHAPATNAM-13, ANDHRA PRADESH.
8. SMT KALIDINDI NAGESWARI, W/O LATE DR.K.S.N.RAJU, R/O
APSEB COLONY, SEETHAMMADHARA, VISAKHAPATNAM-13,
ANDHRA PRADESH. RR 7 AND 8 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER THE
COURT'S ORDER DT.28.04.2023 IN I.A.NO.03 OF 2014 ( WP MP
NO31225 OF 2014).
...RESPONDENT(S):
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 toto issue Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 2 to 6 in interfering with the petitioners peaceful possession and enjoyment the subject land an extent 6,500 Sq.Yard in T.S.No.1012 of Block No.40 of Peda Waltair Ward of Visakhapatnam City and preventing the petitioners from entering and doing developmental activities in the subject land as illegal arbitrary, contrary to the principles of natural justice without jurisdiction and violative of the property rights as guaranteed under Article 300-A of Constitution of India and consequentially direct the Respondents 2 to 6 not to interfere with the Petitioners peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject land IA NO: 1 OF 2014(WVMP 2672 OF 2014 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 To vacate the interim order granted on 14.8.2014 in W.P.No. 23436 of 2014 IA NO: 2 OF 2014(WPMP 29355 OF 2014 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 to issue an Interim direction directing the Respondents 2 to 6 not to interfere with the petitioners peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject land an extent of 6,500 Sq.Ys. in T.S.No.1012 of Block No.40 Peda Waltair Ward of Visakhapatnam City pending disposal of the Writ Petition 3 RRR,J W.P.No.23436 of 2014 IA NO: 3 OF 2014(WPMP 31225 OF 2014 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 implead the petitioner herein as the Respondent NO. 7 & 8 in the above Writ Petition as well as in WPMPs the interest of justice IA NO: 6 OF 2014(WVMP 135988 OF 2014 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 IA NO: 1 OF 2017(WPMP 10825 OF 2017 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 to permit the implead party petitioner to be impleaded as Respondent No.7 in the above Writ Petition and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2022 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 pleased to permit the petitioners to file additional documents/material papers in IA.No.3 of 2014 (WPMP No.31225/2014) in WP.No.23436/2014 for consideration of the Honourable Court and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 Pleased to permit the petitioners to permit the petitioners to file additional documents / material papers in W.P No. 23436 of 2014 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. D KRISHNA MURTHY
2. K KOUTILYA Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. P HEMACHANDRA 4 RRR,J W.P.No.23436 of 2014
2. SATEESH KUMAR EERLA SC FOR AP TOURISAM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
3. GP FOR REVENUE (AP)
4. A K NARASIMHA RAO
5. P SRI RAM 5 RRR,J W.P.No.23436 of 2014 The Court made the following Order:
An extent of Ac.6500 sq. yards of land in Block No.40, T.S.No.1012 of Waltair Ward of Visakhapatnam, is the subject matter of the dispute.
2. The original owner of this land is said to be one Sri Musalakanti Venkata Surya Narayana Rao Panthulu Garu. The said estate is said to have been sold to Sri Perla Satteyya Setty, by way of a registered sale deed, dated 27.12.1887.
3. This property, devolved on Sri P. Rama Murthy Setty, who was the son of Sri P. Satteyya Setty. Sri P. Rama Murthy Setty, passed away leaving behind his wife and daughter. This property devolved, on the basis of a registered will, dated 01.11.1918. Under this will, the wife of Sri P. Rama Murthy Setty, was permitted to adopt a son for continuing the family lineage. It appears that the estate of Sri P. Rama Murthy Setty, devolved upon his adopted son and his two grandsons through his daughter Smt. D. Venkata Ratnayamma. In any event all the three persons partitioned the estate in the year, 1967, by way of a registered document, dated 26.04.1967. The aforesaid 6500 sq. yards of land in Sy.No.1012 is said to have been allotted to the father of the petitioners herein.
4. The petitioners have now approached this Court with the contention that the official respondents 1 to 6 are seeking to dispossess them from the land without following due process of law.
6
RRR,J W.P.No.23436 of 2014
5. The case of the petitioners is that, the land, in question, is governed by the provisions of the Estate Abolition Act, 1948. It is contended that, under the said Act, a person who is in possession of any land, which forms part of an estate, can be evicted only after the appropriate authority comes to a conclusion, that the person in occupation of the land, is not entitled to a Ryotwari Patta either under Section 11 or Section 15 of the Estate Abolition Act. Reliance, for this proposition, is made on a Full Bench judgment of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in the case of Sri Penumatcha Neelakanteswararaju & others Vs. Smt. Jaddu Mangamma & others.1
6. Sri D. Krishna Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that, the respondents 1 to 6 have not conducted any such enquiry and without forming any opinion as to whether the petitioners are entitled to a Ryotwari Patta, are attempting to dispossess the petitioners from the said land and such an action is impermissible.
7. As far as the implead respondents are concerned, it is contended that the said respondents were claiming land in Sy.No.1011 and they have no claim, in relation to Sy.No.1012. The learned counsel for the petitioners would also draw the attention of this Court to W.P.No.14341 of 2005, filed by the vendor of the implead respondents. In this Writ Petition, the vendor of the 1 AIR 1970 AP (1) 7 RRR,J W.P.No.23436 of 2014 implead respondents is said to have claimed land in Sy.No.1011 and no claim was raised in Sy.No.1012.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioners, to demonstrate possession over the land, relies upon the notifications issued under Section 41 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and also on the T.L.C.R. record to contend that the petitioners have remained in possession right from the date on which the estate had been purchased by their ancestors.
9. Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents 7 & 8, contends that, it is the respondents 7 & 8, who are in possession of the land and who have title to the land, by virtue of the deed of sale, dated 21.07.2012. It is also contended that, the vendor of the respondents 7 & 8, who was in possession of the said land earlier, had handed over the possession to the respondents 7 & 8, on account of the aforesaid deed of sale. It is further contended that, the vendor of the respondents 7 & 8, in order to protect his possession over the land, had filed O.S.No.397 of 1988 on the file of the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam. The defendants in the Suit, were the Waltair Club, Visakhapatnam and the Urban Development Authority, Visakhapatnam. This Suit came to be decreed, on 16.03.1998, holding that, the vendor of the respondents 7 & 8, was in possession of the land and a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, from dispossession from the said land, was granted. The defendants had filed A.S.Nos.227 & 118 of 1998, against the 8 RRR,J W.P.No.23436 of 2014 said judgment and decree. These Appeals came to be dismissed, by a Judgment, dated 26.08.2004. Second Appeals 976 of 2005 & 1422 of 2006, filed against the aforesaid common Judgment, came to be dismissed, on 11.08.2014. The learned Senior Counsel would also contend that, the findings of the Trial Court, Appellate Court and the Second Appellate Court are sufficient to demonstrate that the vendor of the respondents 7 & 8, was in possession of the said land and that, the respondents 7 & 8 succeeded to the said possession of the land.
10. The learned Senior Counsel would also draw the attention of this Court to the Judgment of the learned Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases under S.C. & S.T. (POA) Act-cum-XI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, dated 01.08.2023. This Appeal came to be filed against the Judgment and Decree of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, dated 31.01.2019, in O.S.No.426 of 2013, which had been filed by the respondents 7 & 8 against 12 defendants including the State and against some descendents of late Sri P. Satteyya Setty. This Suit, which had been filed for an injunction against the defendants, had been dismissed. Subsequently, the Appellate Court, set aside the Order of Dismissal and allowed the Appeal by a Judgment, dated 01.08.2023. The learned Senior Counsel, would also contend that, the objection raised by the petitioners, in the present case, namely that the land of the respondents 7 & 8, falls in Sy.No.1011 & and not in Sy.No.1012, had been considered by the Appellate 9 RRR,J W.P.No.23436 of 2014 Court, in A.S.Nos.227 & 118 of 1998 on the file of the learned I Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam.
11. The learned I Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, had taken the view that, the discrepancy in the surveys would not be relevant in view of the boundaries of the land in question.
12. The learned Senior Counsel would also contend that, another branch of the family of late Sri P. Satteyya Setty, had filed O.S.No.126 of 2005 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Visakhapatnam against the respondents 7 & 8, for a declaration of title and for a permanent injunction and the same came to be dismissed, on 21.05.2020. It is submitted that, the unsuccessful plaintiffs therein, have also moved an Appeal before this Court and the same is pending.
13. The learned Senior Counsel, on the basis of all the aforesaid judgments, further contends that, the respondents 7 & 8 have successfully demonstrated their possession and title over the land, whereas the petitioners herein have not been able to obtain any such title except a claim being made in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition.
14. Sri D. Krishna Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioners, would contend that, the petitioners were not parties to any of the aforesaid litigations and any such orders passed therein would not be binding on the petitioners. He would reiterate that, the discrepancy in the claim of the respondents 7 & 8 10 RRR,J W.P.No.23436 of 2014 namely that the deed of sale obtained with the respondents 7 & 8, relates to land in Sy.No.1011, while the land, which is claimed by the petitioners is in Sy.No.1012.
15. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, appearing for the respondents, relying upon the counter-affidavit filed by the Tahsildar, would contend that, neither the petitioners nor the respondents 7 & 8, have any semblance of title or possession over the land. He contends that, the claims of both the petitioners as well as the respondents 7 & 8 arise out of the purchase of an Estate by late Sri P. Satteyya Setty and in any event, their claim arises out of an Estate Village. The Tahsildar contends that, the provisions of the Estate Abolition Act, 1948, would apply and any person can claim title, to a land falling in an Estate Village, only when the Settlement Officer grants patta either under Section 11 or Section 15 of the Estate Abolition Act. The Tahsildar further contends that, since no such patta has been granted to any person, in relation to this land, neither the petitioners nor the respondents 7 & 8 can claim title or possession of the land. It is further contended that, these lands have already been handed over to the Tourism Department and as such, the claims of the petitioners as well as the respondents 7 & 8 have to be rejected.
16. The Tahsildar would also contend that, certain part of this land was claimed by Waltair Club and compensation had been paid to the Waltair Club for acquisition of that land. However, it was realised that payment of such 11 RRR,J W.P.No.23436 of 2014 compensation was a mistake and steps have been initiated for recovery of the compensation, which has been paid to the Waltair Club.
17. I.A.No.1 of 2017, has been filed by an applicant to implead itself, on the ground that, it had entered into an agreement of sale with the petitioners for a part of the land. Though, such an agreement of sale, does not give any right to the applicant and no transfer of property had taken place, the application is being permitted only to complete the rights of parties. It is further clear that, no claim of the applicant, in I.A.No.1 of 2017, would go beyond the right or claim of the petitioners and no claim beyond that can be made.
18. The contentions raised by the rival parties, can be condensed to the following:
(a). The petitioners claim that they are in possession of the land and that their possession, at worst, can be removed, by the Authorities, only when the Authorities form an opinion required under Section 15 of the Estate Abolition Act in view of the judgment of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Sri Penumatcha Neelakanteswararaju & others Vs. Smt. Jaddu Mangamma & others.
(b). The respondents 7 & 8 contend that, they are in possession of the land having obtained possession from their vendor under the deed of sale, dated 21.07.2012 and that, such possession is demonstrated by the various Judgments mentioned above.12
RRR,J W.P.No.23436 of 2014
(c). The State has taken the stand that it is the owner of the land and neither the petitioners nor the respondents in the possession of the said land in as much as the said land had already been handed over to the Tourism Department.
19. It would be difficult for this Court to go into these questions of fact and give any findings of title or possession. It is settled law that, this Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot and should not enter into disputes of title and possession between the private parties. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Roshina T. Vs. Abdul Azeez K.T. & others 2 , had held that, such an exercise should not be undertaken, in the following manner:
"It has been consistently held by this Court that a regular suit is the appropriate remedy for settlement of the disputes relating to property rights between the private persons. The remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution shall not be available except where violation of some statutory duty on the part of statutory authority is alleged. In such cases, the Court has jurisdiction to issue appropriate directions to the authority concerned. It is held that the High Court cannot allow its constitutional jurisdiction to be used for deciding disputes, for which remedies under the general law, civil or criminal are available. This Court had held that it is not intended to replace the ordinary remedies by way of a civil suit or application available to an aggrieved person. The jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution being special and extraordinary, it should not be exercised casually or lightly on mere asking by the litigant."
20. Sri D. Krishna Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioners, would contend that, the issue raised in the present Writ Petition, relates to the question of whether the official respondents can dispossess the petitioners 2 (2019) 2 SCC 329 13 RRR,J W.P.No.23436 of 2014 from the land and any claim made by the respondents 7 & 8, ought to be agitated by the respondents 7 & 8, by way of proceedings initiated by them separately. While the said contention merits acceptance, the same logic would require this Court to decide against undertaking any exercise and to leave it open to the petitioners also to approach an appropriate Forum for determining these issues.
21. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is closed, leaving it open to the petitioners to approach an appropriate Forum, which can go into these questions of fact and pass necessary orders.
22. In the event of any such proceedings being initiated, it would be open to the petitioners to raise any grounds that are available to the petitioners. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J Date:17.10.2025 KPV 14 RRR,J W.P.No.23436 of 2014 256 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO WRIT PETITON No:23436 of 2014 17.10.2025 KPV