[ad_1]
Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Polamreddy Dasaratha Rami Reddy vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 15 July, 2025
APHC010469562022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3505]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JULY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR
WRIT PETITION NO: 29624/2022
Between:
1. POLAMREDDY DASARATHA RAMI REDDY, , S/O KRISHNA
REDDY, AGED 57 YEARS, OCC VICE-CHAIRMAN
RAYACHOTY MUNICIPALITY, RIO. DOOR NO.37/69,
S.N.COLONY, RAYACHOTY TOWN AND MANDAL,
ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP., BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT
BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
2. THE TAHSILDAR, RAYACHOTY MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA
DISTRICT.
3. THE SUBINSPECTOR OF POLICE, RAYACHOTY (U/S) POLICE
STATION, RAYACHOTY, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT.
4. MADEM ADI NARAYANA REDDY, , S/O.LATE M.GANGI
REDDY, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, N.G.O.COLONY,
RAYACHOTY TOWN AND MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA 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 topleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or
2
direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus
declaring the Letter, dated 21.08.2022 addressed by the respondent
No.3 requesting the respondent No.2 to conduct the survey and submit
report in respect of the land in an extent of Ac.0.55 Cents in Sy.No.553
of Rayachoty Village and Mandal, Annamayya District to get settle the
title dispute in between the petitioner and the respondent No.4 that too
during pendency of the Civil Suit in 0.S No.21 of 2022 on the file of the
Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Rayachoty as arbitrary, illegal,
quite contrary to the procedure envisaged under the provisions the
Andhra Pradesh Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923, BSO 34-A of the
Board of Revenue Standing Orders, the Circular in RC.No.N1/6543/99,
dated 25.07.2001 and also the well established principles apart from
being violative of the fundamental and Constitutional rights guaranteed
to the petitioner under Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution
of India and consequently set aside the same and such order or orders
fit and proper and circumstance of the case. Prayer is amended as per
the Order of the Court dated 27.06.2025 vide order passed in I.A.No.1
of 20224
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 grant further stay of all further proceedings in
pursuance of the Letter, dated 21.08.2022 addressed by the respondent
No.3, pending disposal of the above 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 pleased to vacate the Interim Order dt.14-09-2022 granted
in IA.No.01/2022 in WP.No.29624/2022 and pass
IA NO: 1 OF 2024
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 may be pleased to permit the petitioner to amend the extent
of the land and survey number as Ac.0.50 cents in Sy.No.553 of
Rayachoty Village & Mandal, Annamayya District instead of Ac. 0.58
3
cents in Sy.No.533 in the body of the affidavit as well as in relief portion
in W.P.No.29624 of 2022 and pass
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. V R REDDY KOVVURI
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR HOME
2. GP FOR REVENUE
3. A SYAM SUNDAR REDDY
4The Court made the following order:
It is the case of the petitioner that, he is the absolute owner of
land admeasuring an extent of Ac.2.71 cents in Sy.No.553 of Rayachoty
Village and Mandal, Annamayya District. He further claims that, he has
inherited the same from his ancestors. In recognition of the same, the
2nd respondent mutated his name in revenue records and issued
pattadar passbooks and title deeds in respect of the said land.
2. It is further case of the petitioner that, he constructed a function
hall in the said land and laid approach road from Kadapa-Chittoor
National Highway to reach the said function hall. It is further stated that,
the 4th respondent filed suit in OS No.21 of 2022, on the file of Principal
Junior Civil Judge, Rayachoty, stating that, he has purchased an extent
of Ac.0.50 cents in Sy.No.533, through registered sale deed dated
21.12.2002, from one Sri Bandi Adi Reddy and Shaik Mubarak. It is
further stated that, the vendors of the 4th respondent in turn purchased
the same from the petitioner. It is further stated that the 4th respondent
filed two interlocutory applications vide IA No.211 of 2022 to grant
temporary injunction and IA No.508 of 2022 to appoint Advocate
Commissioner to fix up the boundaries of the suit schedule property,
i.e., an extent of Ac.0.50 cents in Sy.No.553, with the help of Mandal
Surveyor, with reference to the documents, FMB maps etc., and to note
5
down physical features of the suit schedule property by taking the work
memos from all the parties concerned.
3. It is further case of the petitioner that, IA No.211 of 2022, filed for
temporary injunction is pending adjudication and IA No.508 of 2022,
filed to appoint Advocate Commissioner and to conduct survey was
dismissed by order dated 02.09.2022, by the trial court. It is further case
of the petitioner that, the 4th respondent filed complaint before the 3rd
respondent stating that, the petitioner encroached into the land
purchased by him and laid a cement road to approach the function hall
constructed by him. The said complaint was registered in Crime No.496
of 2022 on 16.08.2022, by the 3rd respondent for the offences
punishable under Sections 447, 427 R/w Section 34 IPC.
4. It is further stated that, after registration of the said crime, the 3rd
respondent addressed the impugned letter dated 21.08.2022,
requesting the 2nd respondent to furnish certain information. For proper
appreciation of the case, the contents of the said letter dated
21.08.2022, are reproduced hereunder:
i. The land in Sy.No.553 with an extent of Ac.0.50 cents vide
document No.3814/2006 whether belongs to complainant
Sri M.Adi Narayana Reddy or not?
ii. Conduct survey in Sy.No.553, pertaining to complainant and
provide survey report.
6
iii. Whether the accused Sri P.Dasaradharami Reddy encroached
and laid cement pathway over the complainant’s land or not?
and provide detailed report.
5. Questioning the said letter dated 21.08.2022, addressed by the
3rd respondent, the present writ petition is filed.
6. On the other hand, the 4th respondent filed counter affidavit
stating that, he has purchased an extent of Ac.0.50 cents in Sy.No.553
with specific boundaries by virtue of registered sale deed dated
18.08.2006 vide document No.3814/2006 from his vendors. He further
claims that, his vendors in turn purchased the said property from the
petitioner under registered sale deed dated 21.10.2002 vide document
No.5043/2002. It is further case of the 4th respondent that, the 2nd
respondent in recognition of his title and possession over the said land,
got mutated his name in revenue records and issued pattadar passbook
and title deed bearing patta No.1078, book No.M476144. Copies of the
same are filed along with the counter affidavit.
7. It is further case of the 4th respondent that, since the petitioner
encroached into the land purchased by him, he filed a complaint against
the petitioner and the same was registered in crime No.496 of 2006. It is
his further case that, he filed suit in OS No.21 of 2022, on the file of the
Principal Junior Civil Judge, Rayachoty, and the trial court granted
temporary injunction by order dated 07.02.2022 in IA No.41 of 2022 and
7the said order is still in force. It is further case of the 4th respondent that,
the petitioner having knowledge about the passing of injunction order
against him, suppressed the same and got interim order dated
14.09.2022 in the present writ petition by misrepresenting that, when
the civil court did not grant injunction, the 4th respondent filed complaint
before the 3rd respondent against the petitioner. It is further stated in the
counter affidavit that, as against order dated 02.09.2022, passed in IA
No.508 of 2022, whereunder the request of the petitioner to appoint
Advocate Commissioner and to conduct survey over the suit schedule
property, he filed revision petition vide CRP No.1986 of 2022 and the
same is pending adjudication before the suit. It is further case of the 4th
respondent that, in the process of investigation in crime No.496 of 2022,
the 3rd respondent addressed the impugned letter so as to file charge
sheet. It is further stated that, it is the bounden duty of the 3rd
respondent to verify the real controversy involved and unless the
information sought for in the impugned letter is received, the
investigation cannot be completed and prayed to dismiss the present
writ petition.
8. Heard counsel for the petitioner, counsel for the 4th respondent
and Assistant Government Pleader for Home.
9. Perused the material available on record.
8
10. It is not in dispute that, the 4th respondent filed interlocutory
application vide IA No.508 of 2022, seeking to appoint Advocate
Commissioner to fix up the boundaries of the subject land with the help
of Mandal Surveyor. It is also not in dispute that, the said application
was dismissed by order dated 02.09.2022. Questioning the said order,
the 4th respondent preferred civil revision petition vide CRP No.1986 of
2022, which is pending adjudication before this Court. When the matter
is seized by the competent civil court, and the same is also pending
consideration before this Court in the above revision petition, the 3rd
respondent ought not to have addressed the impugned letter dated
21.08.2022 to the 2nd respondent. Further, there is a separate
mechanism provided to conduct survey under the provisions of Andhra
Pradesh Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923.
11. Be that as it may, when the competent civil court dismissed
application to conduct survey, the 3rd respondent cannot sit in appeal as
against the said order and such power is not traceable under any
statute. Further, the parties are under obligation to abide by the orders
passed by the civil court. As long as the order dated 02.09.2022,
passed in IA No.508 of 2022 is not set aside, survey cannot be
undertaken as against the subject land. If the same is allowed, it would
amount to interference with the administration of justice. Viewed from
9any angle, the impugned letter dated 21.08.2022, does not stand for
judicial scrutiny and accordingly the same is set aside.
12. It is pertinent to mention that this Court by interim order dated
14.09.2022, directed the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner
and not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner over the subject
land. The said order was passed taking into consideration of the
averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. On
perusal of the record it is clear that, the trial court by order dated
07.02.2022, granted ad interim ex-parte injunction against the petitioner
herein. During the course of hearing the counsel for the petitioner
submitted that, the said application is pending adjudication.
13. In view thereof, interim order granted by this Court, restraining the
respondent Nos.2 & 4 from dispossessing and interfering with his
possession over the subject land, is hereby vacated. The parties are
directed to put forth their respective claims over the land in dispute
before the trial court.
14. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated
herein above. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________
JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR
Dt.15.07.2025
DSB
10
3
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR
WP.No.29624 of 2022
Date: 15.07.2025
U
DSB
[ad_2]
Source link