The State Of Andhra Pradesh vs. P. Devaraj Naidu

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 (@ SLP(C) No. 19102/2023)

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS. APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

P. DEVARAJ NAIDU RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

• 1. Leave granted.
• 2. The law pertaining to the grant of Ryotwari patta is quite settled. On a perusal of the Annexure P-1, being the order of the Settlement Officer, Nellore dated 31.01.1979 prima facie**, we are not inclined to hold that it was accordingly done as per the terms of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (for short, the Act).**

3. It is also the case of the appellants that the entire area in question comes under the government village, since way back in the year 1960. Therefore, the issue for consideration is not only with respect to the nature of the land being a water body or reservoir, but also one that pertains to title. The incidental issue is with respect to the respondent being granted the alleged patta, for which no actual record has been found, that had been given to him when he was 22 years old, on the factual assertion that he has been cultivating the land since 20 years.

• 4. The judgments rendered by both the Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court cannot be sustained in the eye of law. The finding, with respect to the existence of the survey number for which the patta has been granted, can also not be sustained. Suffice it is to state that the respondent, being the writ petitioner, has to establish the same to the satisfaction of the Court. For doing so, the question as to whether the land continues to be ryotwari land*,* the validity of the order passed by the Settlement Officer in the year 1979, the existence of the said patta granted under the Act and the nature of the land itself, along with the existence of the survey number at the relevant point of time, coupled with the status of the respondent as a cultivating tenant, will have to be gone into afresh.
• 5. In such view of the matter, we are inclined to set aside the orders passed by the Single Judge and confirmed by Division Bench, by remitting it back to the High Court for

2

fresh consideration. Since our observations are prima facie, we expect the High Court to decide all the issues afresh.

• 6. The impugned order stands set aside.
• 7. The appeal is disposed of, accordingly.
• 8. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

……………………………………………………J. [M.M. SUNDRESH]

……………………………………………………J. [RAJESH BINDAL]

NEW DELHI; 30th APRIL, 2025 ITEM NO.16 COURT NO.8 SECTION XII-A

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 19102/2023 [Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 27-06-2023 in WA No. 844/2022 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amravati]

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS. Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

P. DEVARAJ NAIDU Respondent(s)

IA No. 29331/2024 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. IA No. 29330/2024 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES IA No. 177642/2023 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES

Date : 30-04-2025 This matter was called on for hearing today.

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. SUNDRESH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL

For Petitioner(s)	Ms. Prerna Singh, Adv.<br>Mr. Guntur Pramod Kumar, AOR<br>Mr. Samarth Krishan Luthra, Adv.
For Respondent(s)	Mr. Narendar Hooda, Sr. Adv.<br>Mr. Mahesh Kumar, Adv.<br>Mr. Aniruddha Purshottam, Adv.<br>Mr. Nikhilesh Kumar, Adv.<br>Mr. Yash Ahlawat, Adv.<br>Ms. Devika Khanna, Adv.<br>Mrs. V D Khanna, Adv.<br>Mr. Vmz Chambers, AOR

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

Leave granted.

The appeal is disposed of in terms of the signed order. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

(SWETA BALODI) (ANU BHALLA) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH) (Signed order is placed on the file)