SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 16692

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
NINALA JAYASURYA
Shaik Babu Saheb – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF AP – Respondent
WP 5505/2019



##PAGE1##

1

2025:APHC:696130

APHC010124842019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI [3209]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

WRIT PETITION No: 5505 of 2019

Between:

1. SHAIK BABU SAHEB, S/o. SHAIK BASHA SAHEB, AGED ABOUT 43

YEARS, OCC: CULTIVATION, R/o.DOOR No.1/648,

VEERAMUSTIPALYAM, JAYARAMARAO STREET, SRIKALAHASTI

TOWN, CHITTOOR DIST.

...PETITIONER

AND

1. THE STATE OF AP, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,

REVENUE DEPT, (ASSIGNMENTS WING) SECRETARIAT

BUILDINGS, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DIST.

2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR ( ASSIGNMENTS WING), CHITTOOR

DIST., CHITTOOR.

3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, TIRUPATHI, CHITTOOR

DISTRICT.

4. THE THASILDAR, THOTAMBEDU MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

...RESPONDENT(S):

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. Mr.T.C. KRISHNAN

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR REVENUE (AP)

##PAGE2##

2

2025:APHC:696130

The Court made the following Order:

The present writ petition is filed aggrieved by an order dated 02.04.2007

passed by the 4th respondent in resuming the subject matter land of an extent

of Ac.2.00 cents situated in Survey No.285/2 P of Thottambedu Village.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that the said

extent of land was assigned to the petitioner’s father vide DKT Patta

No.195/4/92 dated 31.08.1982 and during the life time of the petitioner’s

father, the revenue officials granted a Pattadar Pass Book and Title Deed. He

submits that after the death of the petitioner’s father, being the successor of

the subject matter property / land, the petitioner carried on cultivation by

raising dry crops. He submits that while that being the position, the 4th

respondent and other officials started interfering with the petitioner’s peaceful

possession and enjoyment of the subject matter land and on enquiry, it was

informed that the DKT patta granted to the petitioner’s father was cancelled

long back and therefore, the petitioner can no longer be permitted to continue

the cultivation in the subject matter land. Under the said circumstances, he

submits that the petitioner made further enquiries and after constant

persuasion, the 4th respondent furnished a copy of the Proceedings dated

02.04.2007 impugned in the present writ petition. He submits that the

Proceedings dated 02.04.2007 were passed without issuing any notice, much

less due opportunity to the petitioner and as such the same is liable to be set

aside on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice.

##PAGE3##

3

3. The learned counsel further contends that in fact, the said proceedings

were issued after the death of the petitioner’s father on 26.01.2001 and the

same are passed against a dead person are non-est in the eye of Law. He

further submits that the stand taken by the respondent No.4 in the counter-

affidavit to the effect that notices sent to the Village Revenue Officer,

Thottambedu could not be served as the assignees are not residing in the

village and therefore, the notice was served by substitute method of fixing the

same on a stick and planted in the land in question, is not tenable. If the

original assignee i.e., the father of the petitioner died in 2001, the question of

serving of a notice, much less attempt to serve the same on him as sought to

be explained in the counter-affidavit does not arise at all. Be that as it may. He

submits that in similar circumstances, a learned Judge of this Court, set aside

the very same proceedings dated 02.04.2007 in respect of the lands which are

situated in Survey No.285/3 vide Orders 21.11.2022 in W.P.No.16133 of

2015. Making the said submissions, the learned counsel while placing

reliance on the decision of a learned Single Judge of the erstwhile High Court

of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Dodda Narasimhaiah v. District

Collector and Ors.,, 2025:APHC:696130 urges to allow the writ petition.

4. On the other hand, Mr.Dilip Naik, learned Assistant Government

Pleader made submissions with reference to the averments m

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top