IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRAPRADESH :: AMARAVATJ

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH

0
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
&0

PRESENT to 4.
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM
WRIT APPEAL NO: 817 OF 2024

Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters preferred against order dated
13.08.2024 in W.P.No. 17278 of 2024 on the file of the High Court.
Between: ^

Medarametia Venkata Sesha Reddy, Aged about 40 years, S/o

Medarametia Ayyappa Reddy, Brahmanakraka Village Jaladanki
Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

...Appellant/Writ Petitioner
AND

1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue

Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra
Pradesh.

2. The District Collector, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District, Andhra Pradesh.

3. The Tahsilda'f, Jaladanki Mandal, SPSR Nellore District Andhra

Pradesh.

4. The Station House Officer, Kaligiri, SPSR Nellore District.

5. Medarametia Siva Leela, Aged about 62 years, W/o Late Venkata

Krishna Reddy, Dr. No. 10-34-4/B, Plot No. 51 and 52, Cooperative
Colony, Kavali, SPSR Nellore District.

6. Jilumudi Malla Reddy, S/o'Malakonda Reddy, Brahmanakraka Villaqe

Jaladanki Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. ’

7. Mogallapu Bindu Sri, W/o Muktinath, R/o 74-14-46-1, Sardarpatel Road

Krishna Nagar, Vijayawada.
8. Yadavalli Srinivasa Rao, S/o Paparao, R/o 14-538, Plot No 76 Phase-
1, Madhavapuram Colony, 5*'^ Road Kanuru, Vijayawada City. ’
p

9. Kata Ramachandra Reddy, S/o Dharshada Ramireddy, R/o 27/2/1298

Steel Factory Road, Balaji Nagar, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District.
10.
V. Ramachandra Reddy, S/o Rami Reddy, R/o Dr. No. 3-7-389
Tati Annaram, LB Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana.
11.
Muthyala VaniSree, W/o Satyanarayana, R/o 2-62-1, F-4,
Peddireddy Varivedi, Shantinagar:,j<akinada City, East Godavari
District, Andhra Pradesh.

...Respondents/Respondents
lA 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 direct the Respondent No.3 herein not to mutate the names of
Respondent Nos.7 to 11 herein in the revenue records in relation to Plaint
A Schedule properties in O S.No.76 of 2015 .i.e., survey Nos. 292, 294,
295,564, 566, 567/1, 567/2, 568/1/4,573/2, 577, 580/1 580/2, 598, 628,
1374, 1381/2, 1382/2, 2567/4, 574/2A, 574/2B/1, 568/2, 573/1 and 573/1
situated at Brahmanakraka Village, Jaladanki Mandal SPSR Nellore
District.

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI N.ASHWANI KUMAR

Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3: GP FOR REVENUE
Counsel for the Respondent No.4: GP FOR HOME
Counsel for the Respondents 5 to 11: SMT NIMMAGADDA REVATHI
The Court made the following Judgment:
t •

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

'k-k-k

W.A.No.817of 2024

Between:

Medarametia Venkata Sesha Reddy,

Aged about 40 years, S/o.Medarametia Ayyappa Reddy,
Brahmanakraka Village, Jaladanki Mandal,
SPSR Nellore District.
... Appellant

And

$ 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh,

rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Revenue Department, Secretarial Buildings
Velagapudi, Guntur District & 10 others.
... Respondents

Date of Judgment pronounced on : 21-03-2025

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers Yes/No

May be allowed to see the judgments?

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked Yes/No

to Law Reporters/Journals:

3. Whether the Lordship wishes to see the fair copy Yes/No

Of the Judgment?
 2

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

* HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM

+ W.A.No.817of 2024

% Dated: 21-03-2025

Medarametia Venkata Sesha Reddy,

Aged about 40 years, S/o.MedarametiaAyyappa Reddy,
Brahmanakraka Village, Jaladanki Mandal,
SPSR Nellore District.
... Appellant
And

$ 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh,

rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Revenue Department, Secretarial Buildings
Velagapudi, Guntur District & 10 others.
... Respondents

! Counsel for Appellant : N. Ashwani Kumar

'^Counsel for Respondents 1 to 3 ; G.P. for Revenue

'^Counsel for Respondent No.4 : G.P. for Home

'^Counsel for Respondent Nos.5 to 11 ; Smt. Nimmagadda Revathi

<GIST

>HEAD NOTE:

? Cases referred
APHC010421162024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI [3508]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)

FRIDAY,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM

WRIT APPEAL NO: 817/2024

Between:

Medarametia Venkata Sesha Reddy ...APPELLANT

AND

The State Of A.P and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Appellant:
1.N ASHWANI KUMAR

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.GP FOR HOME

2.GP FOR REVENUE

3.NIMMAGADDA REVATHI

This Court made the following Judgment:

(per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)

The appellant herein had filed O.S.No.76 of 2015, against the

5'*^ respondent, before the Principal District Judge, Nellore, for partition of

land situated in various survey numbers of Brahmanakraka Village

 I
2

Jaladanki Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. An injunction restraining

alienation of the suit schedule property, is said to have been issued in

I.A.No.200 of 2015, in the said suit. The trial and arguments in the suit are

said to have been completed and the suit was reserved for Judgment, on

27.04.2023, by the Principal District Judge, Nellore and the same is

pending for Judgment.

2. The appellant, approached this Court, by way of

W.P.No.17278 of 2024, on the ground that the respondents had executed

nominal sale deeds in favour of respondents 7 to 11, at the instigation

and under the guidance of respondent No.6, for the purposes of depriving

the claims, of the appellant, over the said land.

3. The appellant further contends that the Tahsildar, Jaladanki

Mandal, in proceedings bearing Rc.No.915/2019 had issued an

th
endorsement, in September 2021, which was challenged by the 6

respondent, as G.P.A holder of respondents 9 and 10, before this Court

by way of W.P.No.14865 of 2022. However, no orders were passed in the

said writ. Thereafter, the wife of the appellant is said to have filed

W.P.No.32470 of 2022, to stop the 6^^ respondent from evicting the

petitioner and his wife, from the residential house occupied by them, on

the basis of a sale deed executed by the O**" respondent. An interim

direction is said to have been issued by this Court, on 30.09.2022.

 3

4. The appellant states that he had approached respondents 2

and 3, namely the District Collector and the Tahsildar to place the

property in question, in the dispute register and accordingly, the same

was entered into the dispute register bearing No.78 of 2012 by

proceedings dated 28.10.2021. The appellant contends that the

Tahsildar, at the instance of the 6*'^ respondent, had removed the said

lands from the dispute register and such an action is clearly impermissible

and requires to be set aside.

5.
The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue,

obtained written instructions and placed them before the learned Single

Judge. The written instructions stated that there was no direction from

any competent authority, to keep the subject lands in a dispute register

and that the subject lands were never included in the dispute register. In

the circumstances, there was no valid case for the appellant as the lands

were never entered in the dispute register itself. The learned Single

Judge after recording these instructions had taken the view that the

apprehension of the appellant is misplaced, especially in view of the fact

that there was an interim direction granted by the Principal District judge,
Nellore, on 18.09.2019 and dismissed the Writ Petition.

. 6.
Aggrieved by the said order of dismissal, the appellant has

approached this Court, by way of the present Writ Appeal. The primary
 4

ground of appeal by the appellant is that the Tahsildar, by proceedings,

dated 28.10.2021, had informed the appellant that the lands were

included in the dispute register. The Appellant has produced the

information obtained by him, under the Right to Information Act, showing

that certain digital signatures, made in relation to the land in question, had

been revoked.

7. The Respondents No. 6 to 11 had filed a counter affidavit. In

this Counter affidavit it is stated that the trial court, while granting an

various items of the

injunction, in I.A.No. 200 of 2015, had observed that
suit schedule property had already been sold by the 5*^ respondent to the

respondents 6 to 11 and granted injunction only in relation to the unsold

items in the suit schedule and not the entire suit schedule property. The

respondents 6 to 11 would submit that the appellant has suppressed this

initial order of
fact by producing an extension order, instead of the

injunction, as the initial order would have revealed that the injunction was
and could not have
granted against the unsold items of the suit schedule
been entered in the dispute register as there was no injunction against

the alienation of these properties. The respondents also contend that the

properties in question could not have been entered in the dispute register
as the necessary directions to include them in the dispute register had not

been issued by any competent court.

 5

8. This Court, with a view to verify the statutory basis, of a

dispute register, had sought further information from the respondents.

The 1®* respondent had filed an affidavit along with the guidelines for

disposal of mutation applications dated 09.04.2022, 29.04.2024 and

19.03.2024. It is stated that dispute registers are being maintained under

Rule 32 of the AP ROR Rules, 1989. It was further stated that certain

circulars have also been issued, setting out some guidelines for entering

any lands under these dispute registers.

9. Under Standing Order No. 219(b), the Registrar can refuse

registration if the High Court of Andhra Pradesh or any other Civil Court

restrains a person from alienating the property if such orders are brought

to the notice of the registering officers or served on the registering officer.

Memo No.1/Gen.1/2010, dated 10.03.2010, issued by the Commissioner

and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, Andhra Pradesh had

directed all registering officers to scrupulously follow the Standing Order

No.219(b). This regulation relates to registration of documents and would

have no relevance to the issue of maintenance of a dispute register by

the Revenue department.

10. Section 8, of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar

Pass Books Act, 1971 reads as follows:

 6

8. Bar of Suits.

(1)

(2) If any person is aggrieved as to any rights of which he is in

possession by an entry made in any record of rights he may institute a
suit against any person denying or interested to deny his title to such
right for declaration of his right under Chapter VI of the Specific Relief
Act, 1963 (Central Act 47 of 1963) and the entry in the record of rights
shall be amended in accordance with any such declaration.

Rule 32 of the ROR Rules, 1989, reads as follows:

“Every person proceeding under Sec. 8(2) of the Act shall

intimate to the Mandal Revenue Officer concerned the
particulars of the suit. The Mandal Revenue Officer shall enter
the details of the suit in a register in Form XVIII. On the
disposal of the suit, the Party shall communicate a copy of the
order on the suit to the Mandal Revenue Officer who shall
enter the details in the register in Form XVIII. The register in
Form XVIII shall be open for inspection, and the certified
extracts of the same shall be granted.”

11. The Register, that is to be maintained under Rule 32

relates only to suits filed under Section 8(2) of the ROR Act. Section 8(2)

states that a person can file a suit against any other person who denies

his title or right to a property, on the basis of entries made in the record of

rights. From the language of Section 8(2), suits that fall within the ambit of

Section 8(2) of ROR Act are those suits which arise when a person, on

the basis of entries made in the record or rights, denies or takes steps to
deny title of the aggrieved person.
12. The Chief Commissioner, Land Administration had issued

circular instructions dated 09.04.2022 in CCLA Circular Ref.No.LR-

 7

ll/ROR-ll/144/2021. These guidelines related to disposal of mutation

applications. Guideline No.8 touched upon pendency of litigation in the

following manner;

“No case shall be rejected or kept pending in a court case matter, in

the absence of a clear direction from the court of law staying further

action in the matter. However, in such case, after disposal of the

case and mutating the records, the land shall be kept in the

prohibitory order book, till disposal of any pending court case. Such

cases shall be monitored by creating a separate module in webland,

and the case shall be closed only after the court passes orders on

the matter."

13. The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration,

subsequently issued another circular wherein the aforesaid guideline was

withdrawn and fresh guidelines regarding the lands, which may be placed
lands can be
in the dispute register, and the circumstances in which

placed in the dispute register were set out. Apart from this, the guidelines
set out the procedure to include the land in a dispute register and

procedure to delete lands from the dispute register. Subsequently,

another circular dated 19.03.2024 had been issued setting out the

guidelines for inclusion and deletion of land from the dispute register. The

guidelines set out in the circular are extracted below;

 8

File No REV02-12022/190/2022-AS-LRAP&LRUC-CCLA

Office of the Chief Commissioner of

Land Administration AP, Mangalagiri

CCLA's circular Ref. No.LR-ll/ROR-ll/144/2021. date: 19.03.2024

Sub: ROR- Maintenance of Dispute Register-Instructions earlier

issued are withdrawn and new instructions issued- regarding.

Ref: CCLA’s circular instructions Ref. No.LR-ll/ROR-ll/144/2021,

date:09.04.2022 (ToC 473)
****

The Attention of the Collectors in the state is invited to the reference cited
wherein the following instructions have been issued (at second point of SL No.8 of
the Circular mentioned above) regarding Mutations to be taken up in case of a case
pending before a court of law stating that "No case shall be rejected or kept
pending in court case matter in the absence of a clear direction from the
court of Law staying further action in the matter. However, in such cases,
after disposal of the case and mutating the records, the land shall be kept in
the prohibitory Order Book, till disposal of any pending court case. Such
cases shall be monitoried by creating a separate Module in Webland and the
case shall be closed only after the Court passes order on the matter". These
instructions are withdrawn with immediate effect.

In continuation of the previous instructions, the following additional

instructions are issued regarding placing lands (Survey numbers/LPMs) in the
Dispute Register. In case of any conflict on the aspect of placing lands in the
dispute register with any previous instructions, the following instructions will prevail.

A: Lands may be placed in the dispute register only under the following
circumstances, and under no other circumstances.

a. In civil suits/WPS/WAs where there is a direction by the competent civil

court/Hon'ble High Court, directing the Tahsildar/Collector to place the said
land in the Dispute register,

b. In the case of Title Suits, where there is a specific direction from the Civil
Court.

c. If the family members of a deceased pattadar are unable to come to a

settlement AND the Tahsildar is unable to obtain a Joint Statement from all
t(ie family members regarding settlement of the lands of deceased pattadar,
th^ same may be included in dispute register. In case of a civil court order
deciding upon the succession or the family members coming to an
agreement on the division of property, the Tahsildar shall remove such
 9

In

lands from the dispute register and incorporate the same in the revenue
records.

d. Cases where an ROR appeal/review has been filed and is pending before
the DRO/JC respectively, and there is a clear direction from the DRO/JC
directing that the said land be included in the dispute register, the said lands
may be included in dispute register till the appeal/review is finally decided
and orders passed. After orders as are passed, the Tahsildar shall remove
such lands from the dispute register and incorporate the orders in the
revenue records.

e. Cases where an Inam appeal/review is pending with RDO/Commissioner-

Appeals respectively, and there is a clear direction from the
RDO/Commissioner-Appeals directing that the said land be included in the
dispute register, such lands shall be included in the dispute register. After
orders are passed, the Tahsildar shall remove such lands from the dispute
register and incorporate the orders in the revenue records.

f. Cases where an Estate abolition appeal/review is pending with CSSLR/

Commissioner-Appeals respectively, and there is a clear direction from the
CSSLR/Commissioner-Appeals directing that the said land be included in
the dispute register, such lands shall be included in the dispute register.
After orders are passed, the Tahsildar shall remove such lands from the
dispute register and incorporate the orders in the revenue records.

g. Cases under the AP Assigned Lands (POT) Act 9/77, where

Appeals/Reviews/Revision are pending with Joint Collector/Commis sioner-
Appeals/Government respectively, and there is a clear direction from the
Joint-collector/Commissioner-Appeals/Government directing that the said
land be included in the dispute register, such lands shall be included in the
dispute register. After orders are passed, the Tahsildar shall remove such
lands from the dispute register and incorporate the orders in the revenue
records.

h. Cases under Regulation 2/70, where Appeals/Reviews are pending with

CSSLR/Commissioner-Appeals respectively, and there is a clear direction
from the CSSLR/Commissioner-Appeals directing that the said land be
included in the dispute register, such lands shall be included in the dispute
register. After orders are passed, the Tahsildar shall remove such lands
from the dispute register and incorporate the orders in the revenue records.

B: Procedure to include Lands in Dispute register

In each case where lands qualify to be included in the dispute register in

accordance with section-A above, and in no other case, the Tahsildar shall
upload evidence of the same and submit the same to the Joint Collector,
through the RDO concerned. After due examination the Joint Collector shall
 10

pass appropriate orders directing that the said lands be placed in the
dispute register or otherwise.

C: Procedure to delete Lands from the Dispute register

In each case where lands are required to be deleted from the dispute
register, the Tahsildar shall upload evidence of the same and submit the
same to the Joint Collector, through the RDO concerned. After due
examination the Joint Collector shall pass appropriate orders directing that
the said lands be removed from the dispute register or otherwise.

D: Citizens shall be permitted to file applications requesting that lands, qualifying

in terms of section A, and where they have an interest, be included in the dispute
register along with required evidence. The same shall be examined by the
Tahsildar and submitted to the Joint Collector through the RDO, for necessary
orders.

E. Necessary software applications required will be provided by GSWS

Department and Webland team. The Director GSWS Department ard PD CMRO
are requested to roll out the software immediately.

These Instructors shall come into force immediately and the Collectors are
requested to inform all Tahsildars and RDOs to implement them scrupulously. They
may organise a one-hour training by video conference so that the instructions
percolate to the last mile.

G SAI PRASAD I A S,
CC(GSP), 0/0 CHIEF COMMISSIONER-
CCLA Chief Commissioner

To
All the Collectors in the state
The Director GSWS Department Vijayawada for necessary action The PD CMRO
0/0 CCLA 1 floor APIIC Building Mangalagiri@ Vijayawada for necessary action

Copy to Commissioner of Survey Settlements and Lard Records 4th Floor APIIC
Building Mangalagiri

SECTION OFFICER REVENUE

DEPARTMENT A.P.
SECRETARIAT
 11

14.
A minor change was brought in by a subsequent circular
dated 24.09.2024 replacing guideline A(b) with the following;

“In the case of Title suits, where full court fee stamp has been paid and
the Tahsildar has been made party to the suit and the Tahsildar has
been issued a notice by the concerned civil court (all three conditions
need to be satisfied), even though there is no specific directions from
the court”.

15.
The guidelines issued by the Chief Commissioner of land
administration do not trace their power to any statutory provision of law. In

such circumstances the only provision that can be applied would be Rule

32 of the ROR Rules, which requires the details of suits filed under

Section 8 (2) of the ROR Act to be included, in a register maintained for

this purpose. This would mean that the above guidelines, would not apply
to suits which fall outside the provisions of Section 8(2) of the ROR Act. In

the present case, the suit in question is a suit for partition and does not, in

any manner, falls under the provisions of Section 8(2) of the ROR Act.

Consequently, there would be no question of including the land, which IS

i:

sought to be partitioned, in the dispute register.

16.
In that view of the matter, the guidelines of the Chief
Commissioner, Land Administration cannot result in all kinds of suits

bqing entered into the dispute register maintained under Rule 32 of the

R(jR Rules.
 12

17. While there does not appear to be any statutory backing for

the guidelines set out by the Chief Commissioner, Land Administration,

for disputes and suits falling outside Section 8(2) of the ROR Act, we

would hasten to add that there is a pressing need for the creation of a

dispute register in which any dispute between parties over land, is

recorded, to protect innocent third parties, purchasing such land, from

being dragged into such litigation or by virtue of accepting such property

as security for any loans that may be advanced. It would be appropriate, if

the government were to consider this pressing need and establish a

statutory basis for the creation of a dispute register with rules set out for

inclusion and removal of properties from such a dispute register. We may

also observe that such dispute register may be used as a reference point

for verification of title and for verification if there is a cloud over the title of

the person claiming ownership over the land. It may not be appropriate to

insist that properties entered in the dispute register cannot be alienated.

Any such stipulation, may result in power being granted to revenue

authorities to decide title of the claimants.

18. For all the aforesaid reasons, nothing further survives in this

Writ Appeal and it is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to

costs.
 13

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand

closed. Sd/- V. DIWAKAR

DEPUTY REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//
SECTION OFFICER

One Fair Copy to the Hon’ble SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

(For His Lordship’s kind perusal)
One Fair Copy to the Hon’ble SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM
(For His Lordship’s kind perusal)
To,
1. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, State of Andhra
Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra
Pradesh.
2. The District Collector, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District, Andhra Pradesh.
3. The Tahsildar, Jaladanki Mandal, SPSR Nellore District, Andhra
Pradesh.
4. The Station House Officer, Kaligiri, SPSR Nellore District.
5. 9 L.R. Copies.
6.
The Under Secretary, Union of India, Ministry of Law, Justice and
Company Affairs, New Delhi.
7.
The Secretary, A.P. Advocates Association Library, High Court
Buildings, Amaravati, Guntur District.
8.
One CC to Sri N Ashwani Kumar, Advocate [OPUC]
9. One CC to Smt Nimmagadda Revathi, Advocate [OPUC]
10.Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]
11 .Two CCs to GP for Home, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]
12.Two CD Copies
RAM
 HIGH COURT
,1^''

DATED:21/03/2025

JUDGMENT

WA.No.817 of 2024

DISMISSING THE WRIT APPEAL

WITHOUT COSTS