Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Y. Jakob, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 9 May, 2025
Author: Ninala Jayasurya
Bench: Ninala Jayasurya
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF MAY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
WRIT PETITION NO: 7779 OF 2016
Between:
Y. Jakob, S/o. Chinna John, Age 65 years, Occ; Agricultural, Bonchanpalli
Village, Dalitvada, Mydukur Mandalv-YSR Kadapa District.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Principal Secretary, Revenue
Department, Secretariat, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.
2. The District Collector, YSR Kadapa District.
3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Jammalamadugu, YSR Kadapa
District.
4. The Tahsildar, Mydukur Mandal, YSR Kadapa District.
5. Y. Rubenu, S/o. Chinna John
6. Y. Daveedu, S/o. Chinna John,
7. Y. Ramanaiah, S/o. Chinna John,
(R5 to R7 are residing at Bonchanpalli Village, Dalitavada, Mydukur
Mandal, YSR Kadapa District)
...RESPONDENTS
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 a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the
nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in
passing orders vide Ref.A(2)/564/2015, dated 25-01-2016 is illegal, arbitrary
and violation of Principles of Natural Justice, consequently, set aside the
same, forth with.
'. LA. NO: 10F 2016(WVMP. NO: 1989 OF 2016)
Between:
1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Principal Secretary, Revenue
Department, Secretariat, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.
2. The District Collector, YSR Kadapa District.
3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Jammalamadugu, YSR Kadapa
District.
4. The Tahsildar, Mydukur Mandal, YSR Kadapa District.
...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS
AND
1. Y. Jakob, S/o. Chinna John, Age 65 years, Occ: Agricultural
Bonchanpalli Village, Dalitvada, Mydukur Mandal, YSR Kadapa District.
...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER
2. Y. Rubenu, S/o. Chinna John, R/o. Bonchanpalli Village, Dalitavada,
Mydukur Mandal, YSR Kadapa District
3. Y. Daveedu, S/o. Chinna John, R/o. Bonchanpalli Village, Dalitavada,
Mydukur Mandal, YSR Kadapa District
4. Y. Ramanaiah, S/o. Chinna John, R/o. Bonchanpalli Village, Dalitavada,
Mydukur Mandal, YSR Kadapa District.
...RESPONDENTS/ 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 be
pleased to vacate the interim orders granted in WPMP No. 9893 of 2016 in .
WP No. 7779 of 2016, dated; 10-03-2016 and dismiss the writ petition.
I.A. NO: 2 OF 2016(WPMP. NO: 9893 OF 2016)
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
rd
pleased to suspend the orders of the 3 respondent in his
Ref.A(2)/564/2015, dated 25-01-2016, pending disposal of the main writ
petition.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K SRINIVAS
Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 5 to 7: SRI V NITESH
Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4: GP FOR REVENUE
The Court made the following: ORDER
1
NJS, J
WP_7779_2016 .
APHC010472022024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3209]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY,THE NINETH DAY OF MAY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
t
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
WRIT PETITION No: 7779 of 201 fi
Between:
Y.Jakob
...PETITIONER
AND
The State of Andhra Pradesh,
Rep.by Principal Secretary, Revenue Department,
and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
I.Mr.K.Srinivas
Counsel for the Re§pondent(S):
1.G.P. for Revenue
2.G.P. for Assignment
S.Mr.V.Nitesh
t
2 NJS, J
WP 7779_2016
The Court made the following Order;
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard learned Assistant
Government Pleader for Revenue for respondents 1 to 4 and the learned
counsel for the respondents 5 to 7.
2. The learned CQunsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that an extent of
Ac.2.49 cents and Ac.2.50 cents i.e., Ac.4.99 cents in Survey No.604/3
situated in Vanipenta Village was assigned to the petitioner vide D Form
Patta, DKT 4/97, dated 12.08.1987 and the Revenue authorities issued
Pattadar Pass Book and Title Deed in respect of the same. He submits that
the petitioner, by virtue of the assignment, was inducted into possession and
cultivating the said extent of land for the past 2 Vi decades. He submits that
as the unofficial respondents, who are none other than the brothers of the
petitioner were creating problems and raising disputes with reference to the
subject matter land,/the petitioner approached the 3'^'^ respondent by making
an appeal petition under Section 5 (5) of the A.P.Rights in Land and Pattadar
Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short 'the Act') to settle the dispute among the
brothers. He submits that the 3'^'^ respondent issued notices to the unofficial
. respondents, however instead of conducting a thorough enquiry into the
matter as required under the provisions of the Act, surprisingly on the basis of
the report submitted by the 4'^ respondent, issued the impugned proceedings
by reducing an extent of Ac.0.20 cents and directed the 4**^ respondent to
revise the survey numbers and the extent mentioned in the DKT pattas, which
were issued in the year 1987 inter alia on the premise that during the survey
NJSJ
WP 7779 2016
conducted by the 4*^^ respondent-Tahsildar, the petitioner is in actual
possession and enjoyment of an extent of Ac.4.79 cents in Survey No.604/6.
He submits that the reduction of the extent of land assigned to the petitioner '
from Ac.4.99 cents to Ac.4.79 cents is unjust, arbitrary and violative of
principles of natural justice. As such, he contends that the impugned order is
liable to be set aside.
3. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader made
submissions with reference to the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.4
and the material filed along with the same. He inter alia submitted that there
is no dispute that certain extent of land was assigned to the petitioner by the
Government. However, it is an undisputed fact that along with the petitioner,
his brothers / unofficial respondents were also assigned land by the
Government. He submits that as stated in the counter-affidavit, the petitioner
and unofficial respondents were cultivating the lands, as per their
convenience. He also submits that in view of the dispute raised by the
I
petitioner, as per the directions of the 3'^^ respondent, a survey was conducted
by the 4^^ respondent along with the Mandal Surveyor and it came to light that
the petitioner and his brothers are in possession and enjoyment of lands in
different survey numbers other than the lands which were assigned to them.
Referring to the extracts of the Register filed along with the material papers,
he submits that as per the assigned lands list of the Sub-Registrar, Mydukur,
the writ petitioner was assigned an extent of Ac.2.49 cents and Ac. 1.50 cents
in Survey No.604/2 and Survey No.604/3 i.e., an extent of Ac.3.99 cents in all
4 NJS,J
WP 7779_2016
whereas during the survey, it was found that the petitioner is in possession
and enjoyment of an extent of Ac.4.79 cents in Survey No.604/6. Likewise, the
unofficial respondent No.5 was found in possession and enjoyment of an
extent of Ac.3.50 cents in Survey No.604/5 as against an extent of Ac. 1.49
cents and Ac.2.51 cents in Survey Nos.604/5 and 604/6, the 6'^ respondent in
an extent of Ac.3.50 cents in Survey No.604/7 as against Ac.2.49 cents and
Ac. 1.50 cents in Survey No.604/1 and 604/4 and the 7'^ respondent in an
extent of Ac.3.50 cents in Survey No.604/4 as against Ac.2.50 cents and
Ac. 1.50 cents in Survey Nos.604/8 and 604/9 assigned to him. He submits
that under the said circumstances, the Revenue Divisional Officer, basing on
the report of the 4'^ respondent, directed the revision of survey numbers and
extent mentioned in the DKT pattas as per the enjoyment of the respective
assignees i.e., the petitioner and his brothers and to carry out the corrections
in the revenue records accordingly. He submits that by virtue of the
proceedings impugned in the writ petition, in a way, the possession and
enjoyment of the petitioner and his brothers was regularized and in fact, there
was reduction in the extent of lands in respect of all the parties. He also
submits that if at all, the petitioner has any grievance against the impugned
proceedings, he should have carried the matter by way of an appeal to the
Joint Collector and the writ petition as filed is not maintainable. Making the
said submissions, the learned Assistant Government Pleader urges for
dismissal of the writ petition.
5
NJSJ
WP_7779_2016.
4.
The learned counsel for the unofficial respondents supported the
arguments of the learned Assistant Government Pleader and contends that
the orders of the respondent, in the facts and circumstances of the case
cannot be found fault with.
5. This Court has considered the submissions made and perused the
material on record.
6. At the outset, it may be appropriate to note that in'the DKT patta dated
12.08.1987 Ex.P3, the extent of land assigned to the petitioner in Survey
Nos.604/2, 604/3 was mentioned as Ac.2.49 cents and Ac.2.50 cents i.e.,
Ac.4.99 cents in all. Ex.P2-Pattadar Pass Book also refers to the same extent.
However, in the enquiry conducted by the 4*'' respondent pursuant to the
petition made by the petitioner to the 3'^^ respondent, it appears that the '
petitioner as well as the unofficial respondents, who are none other than the
brothers of the petitioner are found to be in possession and enjoyment of
different extents of lands in different survey numbers, the details of which are
specifically stated in Para No.6 of the 4*'^ respondent's counter-affidavit.
Further, the assigned land list sent to the Sub-Registrar, Mydukur, which is
filed along with the counter-affidavit refers to a lesser extent of land than that
was
assigned to the petitioner. Though no reasons were forthcoming with
reference to the difference not only in respect of the extent but also survey
numbers, the petitioner did not choose to file reply affidavit denying the '
averments made in the counter affidavit, let alone that no survey was
conducted in the presence of the petitioner. Thus, the averments made in the
6 NJS,J
WP_7779_2016
counter-affidavit of respondent No.4 remained un-rebutted and amounts to
admission on the part of the petitioner. Be that as it may.
7. On a consideration of the matter in its entirety, this Court is of the view
that the proceedings issued by the third respondent dated 25.01.2016 on the
basis of an enquiry report by virtue of which, the possession and enjoyment of
the parties to the lis was sought to be regularized, warrants no interference in
a proceeding under'Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner
could not make out a
case of violation of principles of natural justice or
statutory provisions.
8.
In such view of the matter, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications if any, shall
stand closed.
Sd/- K. TATA RAO
//TRUE COPY// DEPUTY REGISTRAR /
SECTION OFFICER
To,
1. One CC to Sri K Srinivas, Advocate [OPUC]
2. One CC to Sri V Nitesh, Advocate [OPUC]
3. Two CCs to GP for Assignment, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]
4. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]
5. Three CD Copies
TF
HIGH COURT
DATED:09/05/2025
ORDER
WP.No.7779 of 2016
•■S'.N i 3Z Oi 0 9 JUN 2025 rsil DISMISSING THE W.P., WITHOUT COSTS