G Vara Prasada Rao And Others vs State Of Andhra Pradesh And Others

R. Raghunandan Rao, J

Since both the appeals arise out of a common order, they are being disposed of by way of this common order.

Heard Sri Babuji Tenneti, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and learned G.P. for Revenue appearing for the respondents.

The mother of the 1st appellant had been assigned Ac.6.43 cents of land in Sy.No.886/B2A, of Velpanur Village, Velugode Mandal, Nandyal District in the year 1978. The mother of the appellants passed away on 20.05.2010, leaving behind three sons and three daughters as her legal heirs and successors. The appellants herein are two of her sons. The appellants and their siblings appear to have lost rights over the said land. However, the Tahsildar, Velugode Mandal, had recovered possession from the persons, who were in possession, and handed over the possession of the land to the appellant and his siblings by proceedings in Rc.No.B.319/2019, dated 11.03.2022.

Thereafter, the appellant had approached this Court by way of W.P.No.16155 of 2023 contending that the 2nd respondent, at the behest of the local land grabbers, sought to dispossess the appellant and siblings from the land, on 28.06.2023 and that the possession of the appellant and siblings should be protected. A learned Single Judge of this Court, by order dated 05.07.2023, had directed the respondents not to take any coercive action against the appellant and his siblings.

While the aforesaid writ petition was pending, the 1st appellant, who was the petitioner in W.P.No.16155 of 2023 and the second appellant who is his brother, had together approached this court again by way of W.P.No.28986 of 2024. In this writ petition, the appellants, after setting out the above facts, stated that respondents 5 to 10 along with the revenue authorities and police officials have come to the land of the appellants on 26.10.2014 and again on 04.11.2014 and sought to interfere with their possession over the land contending that the land belongs to the Government. Hence the appellants sought protection of this Court from the arbitrary and illegal dispossession of the appellants from the said land.

A learned Single Judge of this Court took up hearing in both the matters. At that stage, it came to light that resumption proceedings dated 26.09.2020, on the basis of which the appellants had been put in possession on 11.03.2022, had been challenged in an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer. The Revenue Divisional Officer, by order dated 26.10.2022 had set aside the order of the Tahsildar dated 11.03.2022. Challenging the said order, the appellants had filed a revision before the District collector. This revision is said to have been filed on 23.01.2023.

The learned Single Judge, after observing that the appellants had deliberately suppressed the fact of the appellate order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer and the revision filed by the appellants, had dismissed, both the writ petitions, on 13.02.2025, with exemplary costs of Rs.20,000/- on the ground of suppression of fact, which would disentitle the appellants from any relief.

Aggrieved by the order of dismissal of both the writ petitions, the appellants have approached this Court by way of these writ appeals.

We have gone through the material placed before us and have heard the learned counsel for the appellants. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants was that, there was an inadvertent omission, due to which the appellate order of the Revenue Divisional Officer and the revision proceedings had not been mentioned in these two writ petitions. We cannot accept the said contention and the same is rejected. It is too much to say that a person, who has filed a revision against an order affecting his interest, can make an inadvertent omission of such facts. More over, the said fact would be crucial for the adjudication of the issues raised by the appellants.

In such circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge. However, in view of the reduced financial status of the appellants, the costs of Rs.20,000/- is reduced to Rs.10,000/- with a further direction that Rs.5,000/- shall be deposited into the account of A.P. High Court Legal Services Committee and remaining Rs.5,000/- would be deposited into the account of the A.P. High Court Advocates Association.

With the above directions, the writ appeals are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.