Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Julian Ramisetty vs State Of Andhra on 29 December, 2025
APHC010634342023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3330]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF DECEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
WRIT PETITION No. 32700/2023
BETWEEN:
1. JULIAN RAMISETTY, S/o. R SHOWRAIAH, AGED. 76, R/o.
D.No.439 GF3 NIRMALA APTS., ROAD No.7, SRINIVAS NAGAR
BANK COLONY, VIJAYAWADA.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETAIY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, A.P.
SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI.
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALNADU DISTRICT.
3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, NARSARAOPETA
MANDAL.
4. THE TAHSILDAR, NUZENDLA, PALNADU DISTRICT.
...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 prayed that this Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action
of the 4th respondent in removing th thee petitioners name from the web
land/online revenue records in respect of landed measuring Ac 5.00
cents in Sy No. 100/1 of Pamidipadu village, Nuzendla Mandal,
Palnadu District as against law, highhanded, arbitrary and violative of
principles of Naturall Justice and 300
300-AA of the Constitution of India and
consequently direct the 4th respondent to restore the petitioners name
in the web land/online revenue records in respect of the
aforementioned land and pass such other order or orders.
2
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. P VIVEK
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR REVENUE
The Court made the following:
3
ORDER:
It is implored, to declare the action of the 4th respondent in removing the petitioner's name from the web-land/online revenue records in respect of land admeasuring Ac.5.00 cents in survey No.100/1 of Pamidipadu village, Nuzendla Mandal, Palnadu District, on the ground that the action of the respondents is highhanded, arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice and the right guaranteed under Article 300A of the Constitution of India and it amounts to deprivation of the property. Hence, prayed to direct the respondents to restore the name of the petitioner in the web-land / online revenue records in respect of the aforesaid land.
2. It is stated in the affidavit, that the petitioner's father late Sri R. Showraiah, was an ex-serviceman, discharged on 30.11.1946, granted Ac.5.00 cents of land under Ex-serviceman quota through proceedings in Rc.TP 880/81 A2, dated 14.08.1981, by the then Tahsildar, Vinukonda and the same was developed by his father. Additionally, it is stated that the 3rd respondent conducted enquiry and submitted proposal for conversion of the land from Tank Poramboke to assessed waste land through proceedings vide D.Dis.3085/50, dated 08.06.1950 and forwarded the report to the 2nd respondent-District Collector, through Proceedings in L.Dis.12122/52 dated 09.06.1953, to 4 grant permission for the conversion of the land from Tank Poramboke to ayan.
3. And it is further stated that the petitioner's father was expired in the year 1996 and the petitioner has succeeded the property to an extent of Ac.3.00 cents of land by way of testate document i.e. Will dated 26.09.1994 and an extent of Ac.2.00 cents was devolved upon the mother of the petitioner out of total extent of Ac. 5-00 cents of land, and later his mother executed Will dated 17.11.1997 in respect of rest of Ac.2.00 cents of land and he has become the owner of the land to the total extent of Ac.5.00 cents.
4. While so, in the year 2009, the 4th respondent-Tahsildar, collected the original patta issued in favour of the petitioner's father and replaced it with a new agricultural land transfer certificate in the name of the petitioner through proceedings in D/C No.880/1488 date 17.02.2009 and the name of the petitioner was recorded in the revenue records and a pattadar passbook was issued in favour of the petitioner on 18.05.2007 and the petitioner is also paying land tax (cists) and to the utter shock and dismay of the petitioner, the respondents have removed the name of the petitioner in the revenue records/web-land, soon he presented a representation to the 2nd respondent-District Collector on 06.04.2023 requesting to direct the 4th respondent-Tahsildar to restore the name of the petitioner in the webland/online records, the 2nd 5 respondent-District Collector in turn forwarded the representation submitted by the petitioner, to the 4th respondent, through proceedings in REV02-LAS01CRR/1/2023-DT-(E1)-COLLPLND dated 06.05.2023 and directed for appropriate action as per rule in-force and to intimate the same to the petitioner. Despite such direction from the 2nd respondent, the 4th respondent has not taken any action on the representation, till date. As such, the petitioner was constrained to file the present Writ Petition to direct the respondents more particularly to 4th respondent to restore the name of the petitioner in the webland/ online records.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the action of the 4th respondent-Tahsildar is high-handed and contrary to the procedure prescribed under Section 5 of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1989 (for short the Act), a procedure is contemplated before removing the name of a person in the revenue record or web-land, a notice is mandatory under Form-8 in terms of Rule 19(1) of the A.P. Right in Land and Pattadar Passbook Rules 1989 (for brevity hereafter called as rules) must be issued and thereafter the Tahsildar can change entries under Section 5 of the Act, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the affected party. And placed reliance of the judgment of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Chinnam Pandurangam v. Mandal Revenue Officer, 6 Serilingampally Mandal1, and also placed reliance of the order in W.P. No.19513 of 2021, dated 12.04.2023.
6. The petitioner's counsel further stated that the petitioner herein filed Writ Petition No.7064 of 2016 before the common High Court of Andhra Pradesh, when 'no objection certificate' was not issued for alienation of the land, the said writ petition was disposed of directing the 2nd respondent therein to make a decision regarding the petitioner's application for the issuance of a 'no objection certificate'.
7. It is also asserted that once the land is assigned it loses its character of the government land and becomes the absolute property of the assignee. Additionally, counsel relied on the orders in W.P. No. 41223 of 2022 dated 02.04.2025, and W.A. No. 1193 of 2025 dated 07.11.2025. Both orders discuss the implications of Section 22A of the Registration Act regarding the removal of the land from the prohibited list.
8. A reply affidavit has been filed to the counter filed by the 4th respondent-Tahsildar and stated that as per BSO 15/B(11)(2)(h), if a land applied for assignment by an ex-service man and if the ex-service man is prima facie eligible for assignment under rules, he may be permitted to occupy the land applied for pending completion of all the formalities for its assignment to prevent unauthorized occupation of 1 2007 SCC OnLine AP 459 7 such lands by landless poor persons even before patta was granted. It is argued that though the assignment was granted on14.08.1981, the petitioner's father was inducted into the possession in the year 1950, since then, the father of the petitioner is cultivating the land and therefore, the counsel argues to direct the respondents to restore the name of the petitioner in the web land/ online revenue records as he got the property from his father.
9. Heard Sri P. Vivek, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondents.
10. At the outset, it is the contention of the petitioner's counsel that the father of the petitioner is an ex-serviceman and he was granted Ac. 5.00 acres of land in Sy.No.100. The father executed a testamentary Will in favor of the petitioner for Ac.3-00 cents, while the remaining Ac.2.00 cents passed to the petitioner's mother, who subsequently executed a Will in the petitioner's favour. The revenue department took the temporary permission; patta issued to the petitioner's father and replaced it with a new agricultural land transfer certificate in the petitioner's name on 17.02.2009. The petitioner's name was then recorded in the online webland/revenue records, and he has been paying land tax receipts to the government. The removal of the petitioner's name from the revenue record without notice amounts to be arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the Full Bench judgment of the 8 erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the Chinnam Pandurangan case (referred supra).
11. On the other hand the respondents assert in the affidavit, that the land in Survey Number 100, totaling Ac. 28.21 cents, is classified as tank poramboke land according to the Field Measurement Book (FMB). And it is further stated that it is not subdivided, consists of a single parcel, and shows no signs of ridges or cultivation as of the date concerning the claimed land of Ac.5-00 cents in Survey Number 100. It is noted that tank poramboke land cannot be assigned. Furthermore, it is sated that the patta issued in the name of the petitioner's father for temporary agricultural purposes for the Fasli year 1391 and his name was noted as encroacher; however, it was later placed on the prohibited list under Section 22A(i)(b) i.e. objectionable poramboke of the Registration Act, 1908. According to the judgment from the Apex Court, no land classified as tank bed can be assigned.
12. And further asserted that as per the BSO 15, Para 4 (ii)(h), the assignment of the water course porambokes and water bodies is prohibited. And as per G.O.Ms.No.157 dated 13.02.1987, the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued instructions to all the District Collectors and the Special Chief Secretary and Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, that the alienation of land covered by water bodies and tankbeds, Tank porambokes, etc., is prohibited. And it is 9 also further stated that as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.1251 of 2006, "The natural resources of earth including the air, water, land, flora and fauna and especially representative samples of natural ecosystem must be safeguarded for the benefits of present and future generations through careful planning or management"
13. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the material made available on record.
14. As contended by the respondents that the Assignment patta issued to the petitioner's father is Temporary permission/ patta granted on 14.08.1981 for the Fasli Year 1391 and the said patta does not contain any condition. And it is not the case of the petitioner that his father name was recorded or updated in the revenue records at any point of time. The name of the petitioner has not been recorded or updated in any of the revenue records until 2007. Nonetheless, the petitioner's counsel contends that the revenue department collected the Temporary patta and subsequently reissued a new agricultural land transfer certificate in the petitioner's name on 17.02.2009.
15. Upon examining the new agricultural land transfer certificate purportedly issued to the petitioner, it is noted or observed that there is 10 no signature of the relevant officer, the Tahsildar, at the relevant place, only marked as Sd/- xxxxx. (For reference the same is placed below this paragraph) Below this, a signature appears, the signature suggests an attested copy might exist, but the original document is missing. This Court presumes that said agricultural land transfer certificate is an electronic duplication, that might have been created specifically for this writ petition. Additionally, it is necessary to state, that the petitioner obtained pattadar pass books for the same land on 18.05.2007, two years prior to the issuance of the new agricultural land transfer certificate dated 17.02.2009. This raises doubt about the legitimacy of the pattadar pass books, as they appear to have been obtained clandestinely before the issuance of agricultural land transfer certificate. The absence of the Tahsildar's signature at the appropriate location further fall into consideration, the authenticity of the document i.e., agricultural land transfer certificate, is doubtful.
16. The photographs submitted by the petitioner don't indicate any cultivation on the disputed land. The petitioner provided four land tax 11 receipts, of which three belong to the petitioner's father Sowraiah and a land revenue (cist) receipt filed vide G. No. 0530833 dated 02.06.2014, is in the name of the petitioner's father. This Court is unable to understand how the said receipt could be in his name when Sowraiah died in the year 1996 and the petitioner was issued a pattadar passbook in the year 2007. The land tax receipts dated 20.03.1986, and 26.05.1992/93 (the exact year is doubtful), indicate encroachment tax. According to the argument of the counsel, the petitioner's father occupied the land in 1950 but he failed to pay any tax for thirty-six (36) years, until 1986. These facts clearly establish that the said land revenue receipt is false and fabricated. The tax (cist) receipt dated 18.02.2007 is doubtful for the reason that the said receipt is prior to the issuance of the new agricultural land transfer certificate dated 17.02.2009. Even assuming that, if the pattadar passbook was issued to the petitioner in the year 2007, the petitioner has not submitted any land tax receipts for the period from 2007 to 2017.
17. No assignment granted in favour of the petitioner's father and the alleged temporary permission/ patta is for the fasli year 1391, as such, he cannot execute any testamentary disposition by way of a Will. The temporary permission/ patta do not enumerate any conditions allowing such a transfer. Consequently, no rights can be transferred, and the 12 petitioner will not get any right through the Will which appears to be a self-styled Will.
18. The pleading in the writ petition is to restore the name of the petitioner in the revenue record, therefore the Writ order and the Writ Appeal order relied by the petitioner are not applicable to the facts of the case though the respondents have stated that land in Sy.No.100 is recorded in the prohibited list under Section 22A of the Registration Act.
19. Referring to BSO 15, a Division Bench of erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, in the case of Anji Raju Vs State of Andhra Pradesh2 , held that:
"This takes us to the question as to whether the proceedings of the Collector had vested any rights in the petitioners. In our opinion, it had not. As could be seen from the proceedings of the Collector, the assignment was only temporary pending a permanent assignment. In fact, to make a permanent assignment, the procedure indicated in B.S.O.No. 15 has to be followed and a patta would be issued after adopting the procedure laid down by the proper authorities which could only be the basis for the right of the assignee."
20. There is no provision at all for making a temporary assignment either in the Board's Standing Orders or in any instructions issued by the Government. To make a permanent assignment, the procedure laid 2 AIR 1961 APO 123 13 down in BSO No. 15 has to be followed and a patta has to be issued which would give a right to the assignee. Consequently, an individual who has received land on a temporary basis cannot claim any rights or patta, as the applicant's father was issued only a temporary permission for the fasli year 1391. The petitioner cannot claim a violation of natural justice because his name wasn't recorded in the revenue records, and therefore, no notice was required before its removal, according to the court's interpretation.
21. This Court accepts the counter assertions in the entirety, however, based on the Court's exposition and the available material, the Court presumes that the petitioner might have been created all the documents for the purpose of this writ petition.
22. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed, however, without costs.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.
__________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 29.12.2025 Harin 14 8 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHARA RAO W.P.No. 32700 OF 2023 Date: 29.12.2024 Harin