Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Voleti Satyanarayana Rao vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 12 March, 2026
APHC010080092022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3458]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, TWELFTH THE DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA
WRIT PETITION NO: 5053/2022
Between:
1. VOLETI SATYANARAYANA RAO, S/O. RANGAIAH, AGED 68 YEARS
BUSINESS, R/ O. FLAT NO-102, 8-3-228, D-1, SRINIVASA VILLAGE
APARTMENTS YOUSUFGUDA, HYDERABAD
2. SMT. VOLETI KARUNA KUMARI, W/O. SATYANARAYANA RAO
AGED 64 YEARS, HOUSEWIFE R/O. FLAT NO-102, 8-3-228, D-1,
SRINIVASA VILLAGE APARTMENTS YOUSUFGUDA, HYDERABAD
3. VOLETI VINAY RAO,, S/O. SATYANARAYANA RAO AGED 39
YEARS, OEC. CULTIVATION R/O. FLAT NO-102, DHRUVA-1, H.NO-
8-3-228 D-1, SRINIVASA VILLAGE APARTMENTS YOUSUFGUDA,
HYDERABAD-45
4. VOLETI VINATHA RAO,, D/O. SATYANARAYANA RAO AGED 36
YEARS, PVT. EMPLOYEE R/O. 2725 ETIENNA LANE CUMMING GA
30041, USA REP. BY HER GPA HOLDER SRI VOLETI
SATYANARAYANA RAO
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRL SECRETARY
TO THE GOVERNMENT REVENUE ( ASSN.I) DEPARTMENT AT
SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT,
A.P.
2. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF LAND ADMINISTRATION OF A P,
,GOLLAPUDI , VIJAYAWADA KRISHNA DISTRICT.
2
3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KRISHNA DISTRICT. AT
MACHILIPATNAM, A.P.
4. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, KRISHNA DIVISION,
VIJAYAWADA R4 IS IMPLEADED AS PER COURT ORDER DT
14/03/2023 VIDE ORDER PASSED IN IA 02/2022.
...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 to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings dated 06-03- 2021 in Rc.E3/ e-610566/2018 issued by 3rd respondent rejecting the representation of petitioners dated 07-07-2020 for deletion of their lands situated in RS No 346 and 347 of Madicherla Village, Bapulapadu Mandal, Krishna District from the notification issued by 1st respondent under section 22-A (1) (e) of Registration Act 1908 in GOMs No 196 dated 05-05-2016 as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Principles of Natural Justice, and principle of Audi Alteram Partem and Article 14 of Constitution of India and set aside the same and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to conduct enquiry on the representations of the petitioners afresh after furnishing the copies of the reports referred in the impugned proceedings and by giving opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners in the interest of Justice 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 to suspend the operation of impugned proceedings dated 06-03-2021 in Rc.E3/e-610566/2018 issued by 3rd respondent in the interest of Justice pending disposal of the writ petition and pass IA NO: 2 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 to Implead the Respondent No 4 herein as Respondent No.4 in the writ petition No.5053 of 2022 in the interest of Justice and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 3 permit receive counter copies on record by granting leave to the respondent in the above writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. CH B R P SEKHAR Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR FORESTS (AP)
2. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following Order:
Heard Sri CH.B.R.P. Sekhar, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents.
2. The instant Writ Petition is filed challenging the proceedings of the respondent No.3, rejecting the representation made by the petitioners seeking deletion of the subject property to the extent of Ac.3.62 cents i.e., Ac.1.62 ½ cents and Ac.1.99 ½ cents in Sy.Nos.346 & 347 of Madicherla Village, Bapulapadu Mandal, Krishna District from the category of the prohibited list of properties under Section 22-A(1)(e) of the Registration Act, 1908.
3. The petitioners' case is that the subject lands are the private patta lands of the petitioners, having been purchased by them for valid sale consideration from the original pattadars. Thus, after the purchase of the same, the petitioners have brought the land into cultivation, and they have been in possession and occupation of the same. In recognition of their possession and occupation, the respondents have also carried out necessary 4 mutations in the revenue records and issued pattadar passbooks and title deeds in favour of the petitioners. However, the subject lands have been listed as prohibited properties under Section 22-A(1)(e) of the Registration Act, 1908. The petitioners have made a representation seeking the deletion of the subject property from the list of prohibited category. Since no orders have been passed on the said representation, they have approached this Court by way of a Writ Petition in W.P.No.16081 of 2021. This Court, while disposing of the said Writ Petition, directed the respondents to consider the representations of the petitioners. Pursuant to the disposal of the representation, the order impugned in the present Writ Petition has been passed, rejecting the request made by the petitioners. Thus the petitioners filed the instant Writ Petition.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the 3rd respondent while passing the impugned order has observed that the subject land forms part of a Forest block notified in 1972. While arriving at such conclusion he refers to two joint surveys conducted by forest and revenue departments, and observed that the transfer and alienation of the subject lands is prohibited under the provisions of Section 18 and 28B of AP Forest Act, 1967.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners further contend that the reports of the said joint survey was never furnished to the petitioners and no notice was issued to the petitioners, before passing the impugned proceedings. Having regard to the same, the learned counsel for the 5 petitioners argues that the impugned order is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and the same shall have to be set aside.
6. The respondent No.4 has filed counter affidavit contending inter alia that the subject lands belong to the Forest department obtaining loan by mortgaging the lands would not confer title in favour of the petitioners.
7. Considered the submissions. As seen from the impugned order, the 3rd respondent based his finding on a joint inspection report of the forest and revenue departments. However, it does not appear from the record if a copy of the said report was furnished to the petitioners before concluding that the petitioners cannot claim any right over the property, On the other hand in the counter affidavit of the forest department it has been stated, while not disputing the fact that the impugned order was based on the reports received from revenue and department, that internal communications between two departments need not be furnished to the petitioner. The said contention of the respondents is misconceived and the same is contrary to the principles of natural justice. In the facts of the case, the 3rd respondent, while discharging the quasi-judicial functions, cannot base his finding on certain documents without furnishing the same to the party who has approached him seeking justice. Having regard to the contentions advanced, this Court deems it appropriate to set aside the impugned proceedings and remand the matter to the respondent No.3 for fresh consideration. Petitioner is also granted liberty to file fresh representation before the 3rd respondent. Upon filing of the same, the 3rd respondent is directed to consider and pass appropriate orders after 6 giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioners in accordance with law and after furnishing the copy of the report(s), if any, that would be relied upon by him, as expeditiously as possible not later than three (03) months from the date of receipt of this order.
8. With the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, all pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.
______________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA Dated: 12.03.2026 MSI 7 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 5053/2022 Dated: 12.03.2026 MSI