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

2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 8919

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Kiranmayee Mandava, J
GLN SRAVAN KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO: 4990/2022



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Panga Sivanarayana, C. Rama Chandra Raju
For the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE

The government cannot unilaterally grant possession certificates over private patta land to third parties; mere cancellation of such certificates without restoring physical possession or providing legal compensation is a violation of the owner's constitutional property rights.

Headnote:The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Article 300-A, challenging the failure of the respondents to restore possession of private patta land admeasuring Ac.0.69 cents in Survey No.51/7, Papampeta village, after the cancellation of erroneously issued possession certificates. The court found that the respondents had unilaterally granted possession certificates to third parties over private land without following due process of law, which were subsequently cancelled upon realizing the land was private patta land. The primary issue was whether the mere cancellation of possession certificates suffices when the land remains in the physical possession of third parties. The court reasoned that since the certificates allowed beneficiaries to mortgage the property and obtain loans, they functioned as more than mere possession records, effectively granting a license to deal with the property as owners. Consequently, cancelling the documents without restoring physical possession or providing compensation does not render justice to the rightful owner. this Court deems it appropriate to direct the respondents to restore the possession of the petitioner in respect of the subject land. If for any reason they are unable to restore the possession in favour of the petitioner they should grant compensation to the petitioner in terms of the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, within period of six (06) months from the date of receipt of the order.

Table of Content
1. background of unauthorized possession certificates issued on private patta land and subsequent cancellation without restoration of possession. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. dispute regarding whether the state is liable for compensation if third parties were already in possession prior to the certificate grant. (Para 5 , 7 , 8)
3. liability of the state for granting rights to mortgage private land and the insufficiency of mere document cancellation. (Para 6 , 9)
4. direction to restore physical possession or provide statutory compensation under the rfctlarr act. (Para 10 , 11)

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 may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring action of the respondents in not restoring possession of our land admeasuring of Ac.0.69 cents in Survey No.51/7, in Papampeta village, Ananthapur Mandal, Ananthapur District in respect of which possession certificates were granted by respondent 6 having cancelled the said possession certificates as arbitrary, illegal, un constitutional and violation of Article 300-A and well settled principals of natural justice and consequently either restore the possession of Ac.0.69 cents in Survey No.51/7, in Papampeta village, Ananthapur Mandal, Ananthapur District and Honble Court Pass such other or further orders as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice. Prayer is amended as per the Court's Order dt.25.11.2025 in I.A.No.01 of 2025.

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 therefore prayed that this Honourable High Court Directed the competent authorities/respondents herein to pass reasoned order but the 6"respondent and other respondents has failed to follow the procedure contemplated under the aforesaid statute in acquiring the lands situated in Survey No. 51/7, Ac. 0.69 cents, in Papampeta Village, Ananthapuramu Mandal and Revenue Division, AnanthapuramuDistrictand as such, said acquisition is illegal, irregular, irrational and contrary to the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

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 to grant leave for Reply Affidavit in the writ petition No. 12863 of 2020 and pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

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 issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring action of the respondents in not restoring possession of our land admeasuring of Ac. 0.69 cents in Survey No. 51/7, in Papampeta village, Ananthapur Mandal, Ananthapur District in respect of which possession certificates were granted by respondent 6 having cancelled the said possession certificates as arbitrary, illegal, un constitutional and violation of Article 300 - A and well settled principals of natural justice and consequently either restore the possession of Ac. 0.69 cents in Survey No. 51/7, in Papampeta village, Ananthapur Mandal, Ananthapur District or pay the compensation in accordance with law for the land covered by the possession certificates issued by the respondents of Ac. 0.69 cents in Survey No. 51/7, in Papampeta village, Ananthapur Mandal, Ananthapur District and Hon’ble Court Pass

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. PANGA SIVANARAYANA

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR REVENUE

The Court made the following Order:

Heard Sri C. Rama Chandra Raju, learned c

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