(A) Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (Act 9 of 1977) — Ss. 2, 3, 4 — Applicability — Assignments made prior to 18-06-1954 — Whether transfers prior to that date are hit by the Act — Held, No. Where the Government assigned land by patta on 10-09-1920, i.e., prior to 18-06-1954, the assignment falls outside the operation of the Act. By virtue of G.O.Ms.No.1142, Revenue, dated 18-06-1954, and subsequent G.O.Ms.No.575, Revenue (Assignment-I) Department, dated 16-11-2018, Government lands assigned prior to 18-06-1954 stand deleted from the purview of Sec. 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 and are not governed by Act 9 of 1977. Hence, alienations made in 1964 based on such prior assignments cannot be declared null and void under the Act. Held: Provisions of Act 9 of 1977 not applicable. (Paras 16–24) [Followed: Shaik Abdul Kalam Azad v. A. Babu, 2017 (2) ALD 214 (AP)] (B) Limitation Act, 1963 — Art. 58, Art. 65 — Partition — Long possession by third parties — Suit filed after 27 years — Maintainability — Held, Barred by limitation. Where the defendants had been in continuous possession of the property since 1964, constructing buildings and paying land revenue, and plaintiffs approached court for partition only in 1991 without seeking declaration of title, the suit is hopelessly barred by limitation. Continuous and open possession of more than 25 years to the knowledge of plaintiffs extinguishes their claim. (Paras 25–27) (C) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — S. 96 — Appeal from original decree — Partition suits — Title of strangers — Whether adjudicable — Held, No. In a simple partition suit, plaintiffs cannot seek adjudication of title against third parties/strangers who are not co-sharers. To challenge their ownership, a separate declaratory suit with proper valuation and court-fee is required. Held: Title of strangers cannot be decided in a partition suit. (Paras 29–31) [Relied on: Trinity Infraventures Ltd. v. M.S. Murthy, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 738] (D) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — S. 96 — Appeal — Death of parties — Non-impleadment of legal representatives — Consequence — Discussed. Failure to bring legal representatives on record results in partial abatement of the suit/appeal; however, in the present case, trial court’s finding on abatement not interfered with as the ultimate relief itself was refused on merits. (Para 28) [Referred: State of Punjab v. Nathu Ram, AIR 1962 SC 89] (E) Practice and Procedure — Scope of relief — Partition without declaration — Effect. Where plaintiffs value the suit as one for partition and pay court-fee on share claimed without seeking declaration of title, court cannot grant relief of declaration indirectly. Plaintiffs’ case fails. (Paras 30–33) Held that — Appeals (A.S. Nos.624 & 688 of 2003) allowed. Judgment and Decree dated 14.02.2003 in O.S. No.145 of 1991, Principal Senior Civil Judge, Guntur, set aside. Suit dismissed. Each party to bear own costs.

(A) Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (Act 9 of 1977) — Ss. 2, 3, 4 — Applicability — Assignments made prior to 18-06-1954 — Whether transfers prior to that date are hit by the Act — Held, No.

Where the Government assigned land by patta on 10-09-1920, i.e., prior to 18-06-1954, the assignment falls outside the operation of the Act. By virtue of G.O.Ms.No.1142, Revenue, dated 18-06-1954, and subsequent G.O.Ms.No.575, Revenue (Assignment-I) Department, dated 16-11-2018, Government lands assigned prior to 18-06-1954 stand deleted from the purview of Sec. 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 and are not governed by Act 9 of 1977.

Hence, alienations made in 1964 based on such prior assignments cannot be declared null and void under the Act.

Held: Provisions of Act 9 of 1977 not applicable.

(Paras 16–24)

[Followed: Shaik Abdul Kalam Azad v. A. Babu, 2017 (2) ALD 214 (AP)]

(B) Limitation Act, 1963 — Art. 58, Art. 65 — Partition — Long possession by third parties — Suit filed after 27 years — Maintainability — Held, Barred by limitation.

Where the defendants had been in continuous possession of the property since 1964, constructing buildings and paying land revenue, and plaintiffs approached court for partition only in 1991 without seeking declaration of title, the suit is hopelessly barred by limitation. Continuous and open possession of more than 25 years to the knowledge of plaintiffs extinguishes their claim.

(Paras 25–27)

(C) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — S. 96 — Appeal from original decree — Partition suits — Title of strangers — Whether adjudicable — Held, No.

In a simple partition suit, plaintiffs cannot seek adjudication of title against third parties/strangers who are not co-sharers. To challenge their ownership, a separate declaratory suit with proper valuation and court-fee is required.

Held: Title of strangers cannot be decided in a partition suit.

(Paras 29–31)

[Relied on: Trinity Infraventures Ltd. v. M.S. Murthy, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 738]

(D) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — S. 96 — Appeal — Death of parties — Non-impleadment of legal representatives — Consequence — Discussed.

Failure to bring legal representatives on record results in partial abatement of the suit/appeal; however, in the present case, trial court’s finding on abatement not interfered with as the ultimate relief itself was refused on merits.

(Para 28)

[Referred: State of Punjab v. Nathu Ram, AIR 1962 SC 89]

(E) Practice and Procedure — Scope of relief — Partition without declaration — Effect.

Where plaintiffs value the suit as one for partition and pay court-fee on share claimed without seeking declaration of title, court cannot grant relief of declaration indirectly. Plaintiffs’ case fails.

(Paras 30–33)

Held that —

Appeals (A.S. Nos.624 & 688 of 2003) allowed.

Judgment and Decree dated 14.02.2003 in O.S. No.145 of 1991, Principal Senior Civil Judge, Guntur, set aside.

Suit dismissed. Each party to bear own costs.

APHC010572872003

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3397]

FRIDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF OCTOBER

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA

KRISHNA RAO

FIRST APPEAL NO: 624/2003

Between:

Diocese Of Guntur Socy,rep By Secy & Anr and Others ...APPELLANT(S)

AND

Y Deenammadied 20 Others and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Appellant(S):

1.RAMA CHANDRA RAO GURRAM

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.B VASANTHA LAKSHMI

2.CH VIDYASAGAR

3.NALABOLU VENKATA PAVANKUMAR

4.RAMA CHANDRA RAO GURRAM

FIRST APPEAL NO: 688/2003

Between:

P.m. Vimala & 2 Ors and Others ...APPELLANT(S)

AND

Yanamala Deenamma Died 19 Ors and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Appellant(S):

2025:APHC:42439

1.RAMA CHANDRA RAO GURRAM

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.S SATYANARAYANA MOORTHY

2.A B LALITHA GAYATHRI

3.CH VIDYASAGAR

4.DAMODARA RAO THUNGANA

5.NALABOLU VENKATA PAVANKUMAR

The Court made the following:

2025:APHC:42439

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

APPEAL SUIT Nos.624 and 688 of 2003

COMMON JUDGMENT:

The Appeal in A.S.No.624 of 2003 has been filed, under Section 96 of

the Code of Civil Procedure [for short ‘the C.P.C.’], by the

Appellants/Defendant Nos.3 and 4, challenging the Decree and Judgment

dated 14.02.2003 in O.S.No.145 of 1991 passed by the learned Principal

Senior Civil Judge, Guntur [for short ‘the trial Court’].

2. The Appeal in A.S.No.688 of 2003 has been filed, under Section 96 of

the Code of Civil Procedure [for short ‘the C.P.C.’], by the

Appellants/Defendant Nos.2, 8 and 9, challenging the Decree and Judgment

dated 14.02.2003 in O.S.No.145 of 1991 passed by the learned Principal

Senior Civil Judge, Guntur [for short ‘the trial Court’].

3. Since both the appeals are filed against one Judgment and Decree,

they are clubbed together and a common judgment is being pronounced in

both these appeals.

4. Both the parties in these Appeals will be referred to as they are arrayed

before the trial Court.

5. The brief averments in the plaint in O.S.No.145 of 1991, on the file of

the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Guntur are as under:

2025:APHC:42439

Originally, the suit schedule property belonged to the Government and

subsequently, the Government had assigned pattas on 10.09.1920, jointly in

favour of four (04) persons namely: 1) Ankam Jakrin, 2) Ankam Veeraiah, 3)

Ankam Peda Narasaiah and 4) Kancherla Samuel. Thereafter, Kancherla

Samuel had sold his share to the remaining three persons and Ankam Jakrin

died issueless, as such, his share was devolved on the remaining two persons

i.e., Ankam Veeraiah and Ankam Peda Narasaiah. The defendant Nos.5 to 7

and Smt. Mahalakshmamma are the successors of Ankam Veeraiah and

Ankam Ananda Rao, Smt. Yanamala Deenamma and

Smt. Gogulapati Punnamma are the children of late Ankam Peda Narasaiah.

Thereafter, Ankam Ananda Rao died and the plaintiff Nos.4 to 11 are his legal

representatives, Smt. Gogulapati Punnamma also died and

Smt. Yenamala Deenamma along with plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 are her legal

representatives. Therefore, the plaintiffs constitute of one branch i.e., Ankam

Peda Narasaiah and the defendant Nos.5 to 7 constitute of another branch

i.e., Ankam Veeraiah. Each branch is entitled to half of the share in the suit

schedule property i.e., to an extent of Ac.3.16 cents. Therefore, both the

branches are entitled to an extent of Ac.1.58 cents each. While so, the

defendant Nos.5 to 7, without the knowledge and consent of the plaintiffs, sold

land to an extent of Ac.2.00 acres to the defendant Nos.1 and 2.

The defendant Nos.1 and 2 filed a suit in O.S.No.1385 of 1987, on the

file of the III Additional Munsif Magistrate Court, Guntur against some of the

plaintiffs and defendants herein, seeking for permanent injunction. Further,

2025:APHC:42439

when the plaintiff Nos.4 to 11 have tried to sell some portion of the suit

schedule property to the defendant No.4 without the knowledge and consent

of the plaintiff No.1 and one Smt. Gogulapati Punnamma, who is the mother of

the plaintiff Nos.2 and 3, the plaintiff No.1 had filed a suit in O.S.No.513 of

1987, on the file of the Principal Sub-Court, Guntur, against the plaintiff Nos.4

to 11, defendant No.4 and the Sub-Registrar, Guntur, seeking for partition. A

preliminary decree has been passed in O.S.No.513 of 1987 and subsequently,

the matter was compromised between the parties. At this stage, the defendant

No.3 had filed O.S.No.1350 of 1988, on the file of the III Additional Munsif

Magistrate Court, Guntur, against some of the plaintiffs and the defendant

Nos.5 to 7, seeking for permanent injunction. The defendant No.4 was

impleaded in O.S.No.513 of 1987, but he never claimed any share in the suit

schedule property. The aforesaid suit had been filed before the Principal Sub

Court, Guntur, seeking for partition of the suit schedule property between the

plaintiffs and the defendant Nos.1 and 2. As the defendant Nos.8 and 9 had

purchased the property from the defendant No.2, they were also added as the

parties to the suit before the court below. Hence, the suit.

6. The brief averments in the written statement filed by the defendant

Nos.1 and 2 are as follows:

Originally, the dry land to an extent of Ac.2.16 cents is situated at

Nallpadu Village, bearing Patta No.512 and D.No.566-A out of Ac.3.16 cents.

The said land was belonged to one Ankam Veeraiah and he died in the year

1946 leaving behind his wife Smt. Mahalakshmi and son Nagaiah @

2025:APHC:42439

Prakasam. After the death of the said Ankam Veeraiah, his wife Smt.

Mahalakshmi, son Nagaiah and his children namely Yesudas and

Ms. Sowri, being minors represented by their next friend and guardian father

Nagaiah, have sold the aforesaid dry land admeasuring Ac.2.16 cents to one

Booragadda Simon, for a sum of Rs.400/-, under a registered sale deed dated

21.01.1964. Thereafter, Mr. Simon is in possession and enjoyment of the

property by paying land revenue to the Government and he also perfected his

title by way of adverse possession of the suit schedule property.

Subsequently, Mr. Simon died on 06.08.1978, leaving behind his wife, who is

defendant No.1 and his daughter, who is the defendant No.2 as the owners of

the subject property. While so, when Ankam Nagaiah and his men tried to

interfere with the possession of the defendant Nos.1 and 2 over the schedule

property, the defendant Nos.1 and 2 had filed a suit in O.S.No.1384 of 1987,

on the file of the III Additional Munsif Magistrate, Court, Guntur and the same

was decreed by the trial Court on 26.07.1990. Thereafter, no appeal has been

preferred on the decree and judgment passed by the Court below in

O.S.No.1384 of 1987. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the suit.

7. The brief averments in the written statement filed by the defendant No.3

are as follows:

Originally, the suit schedule property belongs to the Government and it

has assigned the land in favour of some persons in the year 1920. Thereafter,

as the said persons have violated the conditions, the Government had

cancelled the Pattas. The defendant No.3 had purchased the property to an

2025:APHC:42439

extent of Ac.1.05 cents in D.No.566/A from one Pancha Paramayya under a

registered sale deed, dated 17.02.1964 and the defendant No.2 had gifted the

subject property to the defendant No.4. The defendant No.4 had also

purchased the adjoining site to the suit schedule property and constructed a

pucca building and hostels, for the purpose of running a college and the suit

schedule property is in possession of the defendant No.4-college. Thereafter,

some of the defendants and the plaintiffs have filed a suit in O.S.No.513 of

1987, seeking for partition of the suit schedule property.

8. The defendant No.4 adopted the written statement filed by the

defendant No.3 and the defendant Nos.5 to 7 were remained ex parte. The

averments of the written statement filed by the defendant Nos.8 and 9 are that

they have purchased the property to an extent of Ac.2.16 cents from the

defendant No.2 under a registered sale deed dated 12.03.2001, for a valid

consideration and they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit

schedule property.

9. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following

issues:

1. Whether the defendants 1 and 2 are the owners of Ac.2.16 cents of dry

land in D.No.566-A out of the plaint schedule land of Ac.3.16 cents?

2. Whether the defendants 1 and 2 and their predecessor perfected their

title to Ac.2.16 cents in D.No.566-A by adverse possession also?

2025:APHC:42439

3. Whether the third defendant purchased Ac.1.05 cents in D.No.566-A

under Registered sale deed dated 17.02.1964 and later gifted it to

St. Joseph’s College as pleaded by him?

4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to partition of the plaint schedule

property and for separate possession as prayed for?

5. Whether the defendants 1 and 2 are entitled to exemplary costs?

6. To what relief?

The trial Court had also framed the following additional issues:

1. Whether the D-8 and D-9 are bona fide purchasers of written statement

schedule property?

2. Whether the D-8 and D-9 are necessary parties to the proceedings?

3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled any share out of the property in the

written statement filed by D-8 and D-9?

10. During the course of trial in the trial Court, on behalf of the plaintiffs, the

plaintiff No.5 was examined as PW1 and Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-7 were marked. On

behalf of the Defendants, DW1 to DW5 were examined and Ex.B-1 to Ex.B-23

and Ex.X-1 were marked.

11. After completion of the trial and hearing the arguments of both sides the

trial Court decreed the suit in part vide its judgment, dated 14.02.2003, against

which the appeals in A.S.No.624 of 2003 is preferred by the defendant Nos.3

and 4 and A.S.No.688 of 2003 is preferred by the defendant Nos.2, 8 and 9, in

the suit questioning the Judgment and decree passed by the trial Court.

2025:APHC:42439

12. Heard Sri G.Peddababu, learned Senior Counsel, representing on

behalf of Sri Ramachandra Rao Gurram, learned counsel for the appellants,

Sri N.Subba Rao, learned Senior Counsel, representing Sri Nelabolu Venkata

Pavan Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.22 and 24 in

A.S.No.624 of 2003 and respondent Nos.21 and 22 in A.S.No.688 of 2003

and Sri Ch.Vidya Sagar, learned counsel for the other respondents.

13. Sri G.Peddababu, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants,

would contend that the Judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is

contrary to law. He would further contend that the Court below ought to have

seen that the plaintiff Nos.1 to 4 and 9 and the defendant No.1 died during the

pendency of the suit and their legal representatives were not brought on

record, as such, the suit relating to them is abated and deemed to be

dismissed under law. He would further contend that the 2nd appellant has

constructed a college in the year 1964 itself and has been in possession and

enjoyment of the same. Further, the suit is filed after 27 years, which is

hopelessly barred by the ‘Law of Limitation’ and the plaintiffs have forfeited

their title over the said property by way of adverse possession. He would

further contend that the Court below had failed to see that the suit for partition

seeking a relief for declaration of title is not maintainable and the suit is barred

by the law of limitation.

14. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents

would contend that on appreciation of the entire evidence on record, the

learned trial Judge rightly partly decreed the suit vide its judgment, dated

2025:APHC:42439

14.02.2003 and there is no need to interfere with the finding given by the

learned trial Judge.

15. Now, the points for determination in the appeals are:

1. Whether the provisions of the A.P. Assigned Lands

(Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 are applicable to the

present case?

2. Whether the suit is barred by the Law of Limitation?

3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for relief of partition as

prayed for?

16. Point No.1:

Whether the provisions of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of

Transfers) Act, 1977 are applicable to the present case?

It is the specific contention of the plaintiffs that the Government had

issued a patta under original of Ex.A-2 dated 10.09.1920, in favour of four

persons namely:- 1) Ankam Jakrin, 2) Ankam Veeraiah, 3) Ankam Peda

Narasaiah and 4) Kancherla Samuel and any alienatition of the assigned

lands taking place prior to the commencement of the Act No.9 of 1977 shall

also be null and void and therefore, the sale deed said to have been executed

by the defendant Nos.5 to 7 and Smt. Mahalakshmamma in favour of the

husband of the defendant No.1 is null and void. The plaintiffs in the plaint had

specifically pleaded that originally, the suit schedule property belongs to the

Government and the Government had assigned patta on 10.09.1920, jointly to

four (04) person viz., 1) Ankam Jakrin, 2) Ankam Veeraiah, 3) Ankam Peda

2025:APHC:42439

Narasaiah and 4) Kancherla Samuel. The plaintiffs further pleaded that the

plaintiffs constitute of one branch i.e., Ankam Peda Narasaiah and the

defendant Nos.5 to 7 constitute of another branch i.e., Ankam Veeraiah and

each branch is entitled to half share in the suit schedule property i.e, to an

extent of Ac.1.58 cents each in Sy.No.566-A. The plaintiffs further pleaded

that the defendant Nos.5 to 7 and their mother late Smt. Mahalakshmamma

have sold the land to an extent of Ac.2.00 acres to the defendant Nos.1 and 2,

without the consent or knowledge of the plaintiffs, through a registered sale

deed dated 21.01.1964, under Ex.B-1, even though they are entitled to sell

land to an extent of Ac.1.58 cents out of Ac.3.16 cents and the defendant

Nos.5 to 7 and their mother late Smt. Mahalakshmamma have no right to

execute the sale deed for Ac.2.00 acres of land under Ex.B-1 in favour of the

defendant Nos.1 and 2.

17. The material on record goes to show that the plaintiff No.1, one

Smt. Gogulapati Punnamma has filed O.S.No.513 of 1987, against the plaintiff

Nos.5 and 6, seeking for partition of Ac.1.00 acre of land out of the suit

schedule property and the said suit was ended in compromise. The plaintiff

No.5/PW1 has admitted the same in his evidence at cross-examination itself

about the filing of suit in O.S.No.513 of 1987 and also the same has ended

with compromise. The material on record further reveals that the execution

proceedings vide E.P.No.15 of 1994 is also filed by the plaintiff seeking for

delivery of possession and the Ameen visited the E.P., schedule property and

subsequently, in view of the obstructions, the petitioner in E.P.No.15 of 1994

2025:APHC:42439

had filed applications seeking to remove the structures as well as the

obstructions in the suit schedule property.

18. In order to prove the case of the plaintiffs, the plaintiff No.5 alone is

examined as PW1. PW1 admits in his evidence in cross-examination itself that

the plaint schedule land is divided into plots and he pleaded ignorance about

the contract of sale dated 05.04.1999, registered notice dated 10.05.2000 and

also the registered sale deed dated 12.03.2001, referred in the written

statement. He admits in his evidence that the Ex.A-1 is registered sale deed

dated 12.03.2001, in the name of the defendant Nos.8 and 9, executed by the

defendant No.2 and others. He further admits that, there is no documentary

evidence to show that one of the patta-holder by name

Samuel has sold his share to the other three (03) patta-holders. He also

admitted about the filing of the suit in O.S.No.1358 of 1988 by the 3rd

defendant, before the III Additional District Munsif, Guntur and he was shown

as the defendant No.4 in that suit and the defendant No.3 had obtained an

injunction in the said suit. He also admits about the filing of the partition suit

vide O.S.No.513 of 1987, by the plaintiff No.1 and others and the same is

ended with compromise. He further admits that he did not file any suit for

declaration of title with regard to the suit schedule property and he had filed

the suit seeking for partition of the plaint schedule property.

19. The trial Court had held in its judgment that as per the Act No.9 of 1977,

the alienation made by the assignee or their parties is non-est in the eye of

law either before the commencement of the Act No.9 of 1977 or subsequent

2025:APHC:42439

there to. The trial Court further held in its judgment that the plea taken by the

plaintiffs that Kancherla Samuel, who got patta along with others had sold his

share to others cannot be taken into consideration. The trial Court had further

held that either the plaintiffs’ branch or the defendant Nos.5 to 7 branch are

not entitled to any right over the properties of one Kancherla Samuel. The trial

Court further held that Ankam Jakrin died un-married, there is no evidence to

show that Ankam Veeraiah and Ankam Peda Narasaiah are the legal

representatives of Ankam Jakrin or not and the plaintiff did not file any

evidence to show that the said Ankam Veeraiah and Ankam Peda Narasaiah

are the legal representatives of Ankam Jakrin, who died

un-married/intestate. The trial Court by referring the Act No.9 of 1977, held

that the defendant Nos.1 and 2 did not get any right or interest under Ex.B-1

property, since those lands are assigned lands, those are not alienable and

that the sale deeds said to have been executed under

Ex.A-1 and Ex.B-1 are null and void. The trial Court had held that the

defendant Nos.1 and 2 have no salable interest over the properties that are

sold to the defendant Nos.8 and 9, under the cover of Ex.A-1 sale deed. The

fact remains that Ankam Veeraiah’s branch i.e., defendant Nos.5 to 7 along

with their late mother Smt. Mahalakshmamma have alienated Ac.2.16 cents

out of Ac.3.16 cents of the suit schedule property under Ex.B-1 registered sale

deed dated 25.01.1964, in favour of the husband of the defendant No.1 by

name Simon. The material on record reveals that an extent of Ac.2.16 cents of

dry land originally belongs to one Ankam Veeraiah, who was enjoying the

2025:APHC:42439

same with absolute rights and he died by leaving his wife Smt.

Mahalakshmamma and his son Nagaiah @ Prakasam. After the death of the

said Ankam Veeraiah, his wife Smt. Mahalakshmi, son Nagaiah and his

children, namely Yesudas and Sowri being minors, represented by their next

friend and guardian father Nagaiah, have sold the dry land admeasuring

Ac.2.16 cents to one Booragadda Simon, for a sum of Rs.400/-, under a

registered sale deed dated 21.01.1964. Thereafter, Mr. Simon is in

possession and enjoyment of the property by paying land revenue to the

Government. The material on record further reveals that the said Simon died

on 06.08.1978, leaving behind his wife i.e., the defendant No.1 and his

daughter i.e., the defendant No.2 and succeeded the property to Mr. Samuel.

The material on record reveals that the Revenue authorities had also

recognized their possession and enjoyment over the land to an extent of

Ac.2.16 cents in the plaint schedule.

20. Learned counsel for the respondents would contend that the question of

whether the transfer of assigned lands is void or not, would arise only in cases

where they are able to substantiate that the assigning patta or the patta which

was granted in favour of the plaintiffs’ ancestors contained a clause of

prohibiting such transfers. The respondents further contended that there is

neither evidence nor pleading on record to show that the provisions of the A.P.

Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act are not applied to the present

case and for the first time, the appellants have contended that any alienation

made before 18.06.1954 are valid.

2025:APHC:42439

21. As seen from the plaint averments, the plaintiff pleaded in the plaint

itself that the plaint schedule property belongs to the Government and the

Government has given the assignment patta on 10.09.1920, jointly in favour of

Ankam Jakrin, Ankam Veeraiah, Ankam Peda Narasaiah and Kancherla

Samuel. The learned trial Judge held in its judgment that as per the Act No.9

of 1977, alienation made by the assignee or their parties is non-est in the eye

of law either before the commencement of the Act No.9 of 1977 or subsequent

there to. The trial Court has observed in its judgment that in view of the Act

No.9 of 1977, the alienation that has been made by the defendant Nos.1 and

2 in favour of the defendant Nos.8 and 9 and the alienation made by the

defendant Nos.5 to 7 in favour of the defendant No.2 are null and void and

thus, the said transactions are considered to be the void transactions. The

present appeal suits i.e., A.S.No.624 of 2003 is preferred by the defendant

Nos.3 and 4 and A.S.No.688 of 2003 is preferred by the defendant Nos.2, 8

and 9, but, no cross objections are filed either by the plaintiffs or the remaining

parties in the suit proceedings.

22. In a case of Shaik Abdul Kalam Azad and Ors. Vs. A. Babu and

Ors.1

, the Composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh held as follows:-

“7. The petitioners submitted an explanation thereto on 21.12.2015

stating that they are bona fide purchasers of the land; that the land

was assigned on 24.6.1919 by the then District Collector, Krishna

District in proceedings RC No. 384 of 1917, to one Abdul Jaleel; that

several sale transactions were entered into in respect of the land

1

2017 (2) ALD 214

2025:APHC:42439

much before the commencement of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned

Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977; that the said Abdul Jaleel

was in fact a sepoy in the British Military Government (ExServiceman); that the assignment policy of the State Government

itself permits ex-servicemen to alienate after enjoying the land for 10

years; that G.O. Ms. No. 743, dated 30.4.1963 issued by the then

State Government had clarified that ex-servicemen were free to sell

away their assigned lands after a period of 10 years; that the sale of

the land in their favour is valid; and the respondents have no

jurisdiction to interfere with the land in their occupation, and there is

no violation of the provisions of the Act.”

23. In view of the aforesaid ratio laid down by the Composite High Court of

Andhra Pradesh, the provisions of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of

Transfers) Act has no application in respect of lands assigned prior to the date

i.e., 18.06.1954 by virtue of G.O.MS.No.1142, dated 18.06.1954. Even, as per

the pleadings in the plaint, the patta was granted in the year 1920 under

Ex.A-2. Copy of G.O.Ms.No.1142 dated 18.06.1954, is also filed by the

appellants. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants has brought to the

notice of this Court that the Government of Andhra Pradesh through

G.O.Ms.No.575, Revenue (Assignment-I) Department, dated 16.11.2018, has

ordered deletion of Government lands assigned prior to 18.06.1954, from the

purview of Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908. The learned trial Judge

had held in its judgment that the alienation of Ac.2.16 cents of land out of

Ac.3.16 cents under Ex.B-1 is non-est. Therefore, the said finding given by the

learned trial Judge is incorrect and the same is liable to be set-aside.

2025:APHC:42439

24. For the aforesaid reasons and in view of the ratio laid down in the

aforesaid case law, it is held that the provisions of the A.P. Assigned Lands

Act, 1977, are not applicable to the present case. Accordingly, the point No.1

is answered in favour of the appellants.

25. Point No.2:-

Whether the suit is barred by the Law of Limitation?

It was contended by the defendant No.3 that he had purchased Ac.1.05

cents in D.No.566/A from one Pancha Paramayya, under a registered sale

deed dated 17.02.1964 and prior to the purchase of the said property, the

defendant No.4 had purchased the adjoining site and the Defendanat No.4-

college had constructed a pucca building and hostels, for the purpose of

running a college and from time-being, the suit schedule property is in

possession of the defendant No.4-college management. It is admitted by the

plaintiffs that the plaintiff No.1 and Smt. Gogulapati Punnamma have filed a

suit in O.S.No.513 of 1987, against the plaintiff No.5 and others, seeking for

partition of Ac.1.00 acre out of Ac.3.16 cents. The defendant No.4 and the

Sub-Registrar, Guntur were also made as parties to the said suit and no relief

is sought against the defendant No.4. It is admitted by PW1 that the suit in

O.S.No.513 of 1987 was ended in compromise. The material on record

reveals that the defendant No.4 had filed claim applications vide E.A.Nos.186

and 187 of 1994 in E.P.No.15 of 1994 and those applications are allowed.

2025:APHC:42439

26. As seen from the material on record, the western boundary under

Ex.B-1 is shown as land of Mr. Dasari Allaiah, who is one of the vendors

under Ex.B-17 sale deed, under which the defendant No.3 purchased the land

to an extent of Ac.1.05 cents in the year 1964. The Eastern boundary of item

No.1 of the property under Ex.B-17 is the land of Mr. Booragadda Simon, i.e.,

the vendee under Ex.B-1. The revenue records filed in the present suit shows

that the defendant No.4 is in the physical possession, cist was paid in the

name of the defendant No.4 and no objections are raised at any point of time

by the plaintiffs until 1987, in which year the plaintiffs have raised a dispute for

the first time with regard to the possession and mutation of the name of the

defendant No.4 in the revenue records. There is ample evidence on record to

show that the plaintiffs are not in the possession of the said property for more

than 25 years.

27. As stated supra, the plaintiffs are not in the possession of the schedule

property for more than 25 years. The suit for partition is filed in the year 1991

i.e., more than 25 years from the date of knowledge of the plaintiffs. There is

ample evidence on record to show that the defendant Nos.3 and 4 have been

in possession over Ac.1.05 cents of land under Ex.B-17 from 1964 onwards

and the same is proved by way of documentary evidence. The defendant

Nos.3 and 4 are not the co-owners or the co-sharers; they are the third

parties. It is evident that the defendant Nos.3 and 4 are in long and

uninterrupted possession over Ac.1.05 cents of land for more than 25 years to

the knowledge of one and all including the plaintiffs. It is undisputed by the

2025:APHC:42439

plaintiffs that the defendant Nos.5 to 7 and their mother late Smt.

Mahalakshmamma have sold Ac.2.00 acres of land to the defendant Nos.1

and 2, through registered sale deed under Ex.B-1 in the year 1964 itself. The

plaintiffs pleaded that the defendant Nos.5 to 7 and their mother are having

right to alienate Ac.1.58 cents only, but not Ac.2.00 acres. The plaintiffs have

approached the trial Court in the year 1991 for seeking relief for partition of the

plaint schedule property without seeking relief of declaration of title. As noticed

supra, the present suit is filed after lapse of more than 25 years from the date

of disposal of the main suit. For the aforesaid reasons, the present suit is

hopelessly barred by “the Law of Limitation’”. Accordingly, point No.2 is

answered.

28. Point No.3:-

Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for relief of partition as prayed

for?

Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants would contend that the

plaintiff Nos.1, 2, 4 and 9 died, but no legal representatives are impleaded in

the suit and the remaining plaintiffs cannot legally prosecute the suit. He also

placed a reliance on The State of Punjab Vs Nathu Ram2

, wherein the

Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows:

“6. The question whether a Court can deal with such matters or not, will depend

on the facts of each case and therefore no exhaustive statement can be made about

the circumstances when this is possible or is not possible. It may, however, be stated

that ordinarily the considerations which weigh with the Court in deciding upon this

2

AIR 1962 SC 89

2025:APHC:42439

question are whether the appeal between the appellants and the respondents other

than the deceased can be said to be properly constituted or can be said to have all the

necessary parties for the decision of the controversy before the Court. The test to

determine this has been described in diverse forms. Courts will not proceed with an

appeal (a) when the success of the appeal may lead to the Court's coming to a

decision which be in conflict with the decision between the appellant and the deceased

respondent and therefore which would lead to the Court's passing a decree which will

be contradictory to the decree which had become final with respect to the same

subject matter between the appellant and the deceased respondent; (b) when the

appellant could not have brought the action for the necessary relief against those

respondents alone who are still before the Court and (c) when the decree against the

surviving respondents, if the appeal succeeds, be ineffective, that is to say, it could not

be successfully executed.”

In the case on hand, the trial Court discussed the said issue of

abatement in the suit and the trial Court had held that the plaintiffs are the

legal representatives of Ankam Peda Narasaiah and the relief granted by the

trial Court is that the plaintiffs’ branch is entitled to 1/4th share out of the plaint

schedule property and the defendant Nos.5 to 7 are entitled to 1/4th share out

of the plaint schedule property. The learned trial Judge further held that out of

1/4th share of the suit schedule property, the plaintiff Nos.1 to 11 each are

entitled to 1/11th share and the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiffs

are also entitled to 1/11th out of the 1/4th to be allocated to the share of the

plaintiff Nos.1 to 11.

29. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents would contend

that the defendant No.2 has sold the schedule property to the defendant

Nos.8 and 9, under an agreement of sale dated 05.04.1990 and subsequently,

the regular registered sale deed was also executed in the year 2001, in

respect of the property to an extent of Ac.2.00 acres and further, she did not

2025:APHC:42439

state anywhere about how she is entitled to a share of Ac.2.16 cents by

excluding Ac.1.66 cents for roads. He would further contend that DW3 is a

person who is said to be the Secretary and Correspondent of the defendant

No.4-college and they are claiming the land to an extent of Ac.1.05 cents said

to have been in their possession and no material has been placed about the

title of the said Pancha Premaiah, who executed the deed in favour of the

defendant Nos.3 and 4. The appellants herein have relied on the

Ex.B-1 registered sale deed and Ex.B-17, which is also a registered sale deed

and both the documents relate to the year 1964. The simple suit for partition

has been filed by the plaintiffs in the year 1991, but the plaintiffs are not

seeking relief of declaration of title of the defendant No.3. Moreover, as stated

supra, the defendant No.3 is the third party and the defendant Nos.3 and 4 are

not the co-heirs of the plaintiffs. Therefore, the Court cannot decide the title of

the third parties in a partition suit filed by the plaintiffs. If the plaintiffs are

disputing the title of the defendant Nos.5 and 7 and late Smt.

Mahalakshmamma, in respect of the sale deed said to have executed by them

in favour of the husband of the defendant No.1, namely Booragadda Simon,

they have to seek for the relief of declaration of title. Moreover, the alienation

of the defendant Nos.5 to 7 and late Smt. Mahalakshmamma, in favour of the

defendant Nos.1 and 2 is referred in the plaint itself, but the plaintiffs pleaded

that without their consent, the defendant Nos.5 to 7 and late Smt.

Mahalakshmamma have alienated the property to an extent of Ac.2.00 acres,

but, they are entitled to alienate Ac.1.58 cents only.

2025:APHC:42439

30. The legal position in this regard is no more res integra and the same

has been well settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Trinity infraventures Ltd.

and Others Vs M.S.Murthy and Others3

, wherein it was held as follows:

“ 115. In a simple suit for partition, the parties cannot assert title against strangers,

even by impleading them as proforma respondents. The strangers who are impleaded

in a partition suit, may have nothing to say about the claim to partition. But they may

have a claim to title to the property and such a claim cannot be decided in a partition

suit.”

The ratio laid down in the aforesaid case law is squarely applicable to

the present case. In the present case also, the plaintiffs are claiming relief for

partition of suit schedule property, but, they are questioning the title of the

third parties in a partition suit. The defendant Nos.3 and 4 are strangers and

they are not co-heirs of the plaintiffs.

31. The present suit is only a suit for partition and all the suit schedule

properties have been valued at a particular rate and the Court fee was paid on

the value of the share, of which the plaintiffs are seeking partition. If it was a

suit containing a prayer for declaration of title, the Court fee was liable to be

paid on the whole value of the property and not on the share said to be

partitioned.

32. The conclusions drawn by the trial Court in its judgment are that the

sale deed said to have been executed by the defendant Nos.5 to 7 and late

Smt. Mahalakshmamma, in favour of the defendant Nos.1 and 2 under Ex.B-1

registered sale deed, in the year 1964 is void and the plaint schedule property

3

2023 SCC OnLine SC 738

2025:APHC:42439

is unalienable, since the patta was issued in the year 1920, i.e., prior to the

Act No.9 of 1977. The trial Court also further came to a conclusion that the

vendors of the registered sale deed dated 17.02.1964, under Ex.B-17 has no

right over the property covered under Ex.B-17 registered sale deed. In my

view, the trial Court was therefore apparently wrong in coming to the aforesaid

conclusions.

33. For the reasons stated above and having regard to the facts of the

case, this Court is of the view that the plaintiffs have failed to establish their

case. The findings and conclusions recorded by the trial Court are not based

on proper appreciation of the evidence on record. “The judgment of the trial

Court is erroneous and cannot be sustainable and the same is liable to

be set-aside and the appeals are deserves to be allowed”.

34. Resultantly, both the appeal suits are allowed and the Judgment and

Decree dated 14.02.2003, passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Guntur in O.S.No.145 of 1991 is set-aside and the suit in O.S.No.145 of 1991,

on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Guntur is dismissed. Each party

do bear their own costs in the suit and the appeals.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Appeals

shall stand closed.

_________________________

V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J

Date:10.10.2025

SRT

2025:APHC:42439

30

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

APPEAL SUIT Nos.624 and 688 of 2003

Dt. 10.10.2025

SRT

2025:APHC:42439

Service Law – OBC Non-Creamy Layer Certificate – Requirement of certificate based on the financial year ending 31-3-2024 – Validity period – Compliance – Directions issued. Communication dated 25-9-2025 issued by the National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences (NBE) required the petitioner to submit a valid OBC Non-Creamy Layer Certificate based on the financial year ending 31-3-2024, issued between 1-4-2024 and 31-3-2025, failing which his candidature would stand cancelled. The certificates on record were dated 1-8-2023 and 6-9-2025. Held, the certificates on record did not fulfill the specific condition regarding the financial year ending 31-3-2024. However, as the petitioner had already been admitted to the Post-Graduate course in Paediatrics and had undergone about eight months of study, the petitioner was permitted to apply afresh to the competent authority (Respondent No.7) for determination and issuance of the required certificate. Such authority directed to issue the certificate within one month, and the same to be submitted to the NBE. Further held, till issuance of such certificate in proper format, the candidature of the petitioner shall not be cancelled. The NBE may thereafter take appropriate decision based on the certificate so issued. — Writ Petition disposed of. No order as to costs. (2025:APHC:42456)

Service Law – OBC Non-Creamy Layer Certificate – Requirement of certificate based on the financial year ending 31-3-2024 – Validity period – Compliance – Directions issued.

Communication dated 25-9-2025 issued by the National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences (NBE) required the petitioner to submit a valid OBC Non-Creamy Layer Certificate based on the financial year ending 31-3-2024, issued between 1-4-2024 and 31-3-2025, failing which his candidature would stand cancelled. The certificates on record were dated 1-8-2023 and 6-9-2025.

Held, the certificates on record did not fulfill the specific condition regarding the financial year ending 31-3-2024. However, as the petitioner had already been admitted to the Post-Graduate course in Paediatrics and had undergone about eight months of study, the petitioner was permitted to apply afresh to the competent authority (Respondent No.7) for determination and issuance of the required certificate. Such authority directed to issue the certificate within one month, and the same to be submitted to the NBE.

Further held, till issuance of such certificate in proper format, the candidature of the petitioner shall not be cancelled. The NBE may thereafter take appropriate decision based on the certificate so issued.

— Writ Petition disposed of. No order as to costs.

(2025:APHC:42456)

APHC010532262025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI

WRIT PETITION NO: 27525 of 2025

Bench Sr.No:-6

[3446]

Galiveeti Gnaneswara ...Petitioner

Vs.

Union of India and others ...Respondents

**********

Advocate for Petitioner: Mr. T. Lakshminarayana representing

Mr. Neelam Sankara Rao

Advocate(s) for Respondent(s): Mr. Y V Anil Kumar (Central

Government Counsel) for R.1 & R.2

GP for Revenue for R.7

x

CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR

SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO

DATE : 10th October, 2025

P C :

The petitioner challenges the communication, dated 25.09.2025, issued

by the National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences [‘NBE’ for short]

which requires the petitioner to submit a valid OBC Non Creamy Layer

certificate based on the financial year ending March 31st, 2024 and further that

it should have been issued between 01.04.2024 to 31.03.2025. The certificate

was required to be submitted latest by 06.10.2025 failing which the petitioner

stands informed that his candidature shall be cancelled.

2025:APHC:42456

2

HCJ & RRR, J

WP_27525_2025

2. From the material on record, it can be seen that the competent

authority concerned with issuing the certificates have issued one certificate,

dated 01.08.2023, and another, dated 06.09.2025, certifying that the petitioner

did not belong to the creamy layer.

3. While the requirement of the NBE may be specifically pertaining

to determining whether the petitioner belong to the creamy layer in the

financial year ending March 31st March, 2024, the certificates on record

certainly do not fulfill that particular condition.

4. However, we are informed that the petitioner has since been

admitted in Post Graduate course in Paediatrics and has undergone almost

eight months of study in the said course. With a view to prevent any prejudice

from being caused to the petitioner, we deem it proper that the petitioner be

permitted to submit the certificate by applying afresh to respondent No.7 to

consider and determine as to whether the petitioner belong to the non creamy

layer for the financial year ending March 31st, 2024.

In case it is found that the petitioner did belong to the non creamy layer,

then an appropriate certificate in the format desired by the NBE may be issued

within one month from today which shall then be submitted to the NBE in

response to the communication, dated 25.09.2025.

5. Till such time as the certificate is issued in the proper format as

directed by us either certifying that the petitioner belongs to the creamy layer

2025:APHC:42456

3

HCJ & RRR, J

WP_27525_2025

or the non creamy layer, the candidature of the petitioner shall not be

cancelled.

Depending upon the certificate so issued, the NBE shall be entitled to

take an appropriate decision.

In case the decision goes against the interests of the petitioner, it would

be open to the petitioner to work out his remedies in accordance with law.

6. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No order as to

costs.

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ

R RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J

Note: Issue CC today

(B/o)

Vjl

2025:APHC:42456

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) — Section 35(3) [Corresponding to Section 41-A of Cr.P.C.] — Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 420, 34 — Cheating — Pre-arrest bail — Guidelines for arrest and investigation — Applicability of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 and Md. Asfak Alam v. State of Jharkhand, (2023) 8 SCC 632 — Directions reiterated. Nature of offence: Allegation that accused collected ₹15,00,000/- from de facto complainant on the pretext of providing employment, failed to provide job or refund amount — offence punishable under Sections 420, 34 IPC. Held: Offence alleged against the petitioner-accused No.2 is punishable with imprisonment for less than seven years. In such category of offences, the Investigating Officer is legally bound to follow the procedure prescribed under Sections 41 and 41-A of the Cr.P.C. (now Sections 35 and 35(3) of BNSS, 2023). The Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar laid down detailed directions for arrest and detention, emphasizing that police officers should not arrest accused unnecessarily and Magistrates should not authorize detention mechanically. Those directions apply not only to cases under Section 498-A IPC but also to all offences punishable with imprisonment up to seven years. The same principles were reiterated in Md. Asfak Alam v. State of Jharkhand. Accordingly, the petition under Section 482 BNSS seeking pre-arrest bail is disposed of with a direction to the Investigating Officer to comply with Section 35(3) BNSS / 41-A Cr.P.C. and to strictly follow the guidelines issued in Arnesh Kumar and Md. Asfak Alam. The petitioner shall extend full cooperation in investigation. Held that : Criminal Petition disposed of with directions to Investigating Officer to comply with Section 35(3) BNSS / 41-A Cr.P.C. and follow law laid down in Arnesh Kumar and Md. Asfak Alam.

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) — Section 35(3) [Corresponding to Section 41-A of Cr.P.C.] — Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 420, 34 — Cheating — Pre-arrest bail — Guidelines for arrest and investigation — Applicability of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 and Md. Asfak Alam v. State of Jharkhand, (2023) 8 SCC 632 — Directions reiterated.

Nature of offence: Allegation that accused collected ₹15,00,000/- from de facto complainant on the pretext of providing employment, failed to provide job or refund amount — offence punishable under Sections 420, 34 IPC.

Held:

Offence alleged against the petitioner-accused No.2 is punishable with imprisonment for less than seven years. In such category of offences, the Investigating Officer is legally bound to follow the procedure prescribed under Sections 41 and 41-A of the Cr.P.C. (now Sections 35 and 35(3) of BNSS, 2023).

The Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar laid down detailed directions for arrest and detention, emphasizing that police officers should not arrest accused unnecessarily and Magistrates should not authorize detention mechanically. Those directions apply not only to cases under Section 498-A IPC but also to all offences punishable with imprisonment up to seven years.

The same principles were reiterated in Md. Asfak Alam v. State of Jharkhand.

Accordingly, the petition under Section 482 BNSS seeking pre-arrest bail is disposed of with a direction to the Investigating Officer to comply with Section 35(3) BNSS / 41-A Cr.P.C. and to strictly follow the guidelines issued in Arnesh Kumar and Md. Asfak Alam. The petitioner shall extend full cooperation in investigation.

Held that : Criminal Petition disposed of with directions to Investigating Officer to comply with Section 35(3) BNSS / 41-A Cr.P.C. and follow law laid down in Arnesh Kumar and Md. Asfak Alam.

APHC010520962025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3521]

FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF OCTOBER

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10202/2025

Between:

1. GUNJI SRINIVASA RAO, S/O GUNJI ANKAMMA, AGEDABOUT 35

YEARS, R/O H.NO. 2-44, BUDAVADA PRAKASAM DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

AND

1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THROUGH S.H.O.PONNURU

TOWN POLICE STATION, GUNTUR DISTRICT,REP. BY ITS PUBLIC

PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT,AMARAVATI.

2. KONDABOLU HARISH, S/O.SUBBA RAO,AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,

D.NO.14-6-31 ID,NETHAJI NAGAR, 5TH LINE, PONNUR, GUNTUR

DISTRICT.

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

1.V BABY RANI

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Court made the following:

2025:APHC:42594

2

ORDER:

The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) by the petitioneraccused No. 2 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.130

of 2025 of Ponnur Town Police Station, Guntur District, registered for the

alleged offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the

Indian Penal Code.

2. The case of the prosecution is that between 15-07-2023 and 01-01-

2024, the accused collected an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- from de facto

complainant on the pretext of providing job to him. Later, the accused neither

provided job nor returned his amount and thus cheated de facto complainant.

3. Smt. Vemula Baby Rani, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that

the petitioner has not committed any offence; he was falsely implicated in this

case; he is sole breadwinner of his family; he is ready to abide any conditions

to be imposed by this Court, and it is urged to grant pre-arrest bail to the

petitioner.

4. Per contra, Ms. P.Akila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor,

opposed in granting of pre-arrest bail stating that investigation is not

completed; if the petitioner is enlarged on pre-arrest bail, he would not be

available for the investigation and he will repeat the same offence; and it is

urged to dismiss the bail application.

2025:APHC:42594

3

5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor representing the State. Perused the record.

6. As seen from the record, the offence levelled against the petitioneraccused No. 2 is punishable with imprisonment for less than seven (07) years.

7. In this regard, it is apposite to mention the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex

Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar1

, wherein a detailed guidelines

were issued at Para Nos.11 and 12, for arresting a person, which are being

reproduced herein below:

11.Our endeavor in this judgment is to ensure that police officers do

not arrest accused unnecessarily and Magistrate do not authorize

detention casually and mechanically. In order to ensure what we have

observed above, we give the following direction:

a).All the State Governments to instruct its police officers not to

automatically arrest when a case under Section 498-A of the IPC is

registered but to satisfy themselves about the necessity for arrest

under the parameters laid down above flowing from Section 41 Code

of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C.’);

b)All police officers be provided with a check list containing specified

sub- clauses under Section 41(1)(b)(ii);

c) The police officer shall forward the check list duly filed and furnish

the reasons and materials which necessitated the arrest, while

forwarding/producing the accused before the Magistrate for further

detention;

d) The Magistrate while authorizing detention of the accused shall

peruse the report furnished by the police officer in terms aforesaid

and only after recording its satisfaction, the Magistrate will authorize

detention;

e) The decision not to arrest an accused, be forwarded to the

Magistrate within two weeks from the date of the institution of the

case with a copy to the Magistrate which may be extended by the

Superintendent of police of the district for the reasons to be recorded

in writing;

f) Notice of appearance in terms of Section 41-A of Cr.P.C be served

on the accused within two weeks from the date of institution of the

case, which may be extended by the Superintendent of Police of the

District for the reasons to be recorded in writing;

g) Failure to comply with the directions aforesaid shall apart from

rendering the police officers concerned liable for departmental action,

he shall also be liable to be punished for contempt of court to be

instituted before High Court having territorial jurisdiction.

1

(2014) 8 SCC 273

2025:APHC:42594

4

h) Authorizing detention without recording reasons as aforesaid by

the judicial Magistrate concerned shall be liable for departmental

action by the appropriate High Court.

12.We hasten to add that the directions aforesaid shall not only apply

to the cases under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. or Section 4 of the

Dowry Prohibition Act, the case in hand, but also such cases where

offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less

than seven years or which may extend to seven years; whether with

or without fine.

8. The similar view is also reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Md.

Asfak Alam v. State of Jharkhand2

, which also reiterated the guidelines laid

down in the case of Arnesh Kumar.

9. In the light of the law laid down in the cases of Arnesh Kumar and Md.

Asfak Alam, the investigating officer is under legal obligation to proceed in

accordance with law but he shall follow the procedure prescribed under

Sections 41 and 41 (A) of ‘the Cr.P.C.’ (now Sections 35 and 35 (3) of ‘the

B.N.S.S.2023'). The petitioner shall oblige to render his fullest cooperation in

the ongoing investigation.

10. In the result, the Criminal Petition is disposed of directing the

Investigating Officer to comply with Section 35 (3) of ‘the BNSS’/41-A of ‘the

Cr.P.C.,’ and to strictly follow the directions issued in the cases of Arnesh

Kumar and Md. Asfak Alam.

_________________________

DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J

Date: 10.10.2025

JSK

2

(2023) 8 SCC 632

2025:APHC:42594

5

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO

CRIMINAL PETITION No. 10202 OF 2025

Date: 10.10.2025

JSK

2025:APHC:42594

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — S. 482 — Anticipatory Bail — Refusal of — Specific overt acts attributed — Custodial interrogation imperative — No ground to grant pre-arrest bail. Held, that the allegation against the petitioner/Accused No.10 is that he acted as the driver of a vehicle in which he knowingly picked up and dropped some of the accused after the commission of the offence and that he participated in the recce conducted prior to the commission of the offence. The petitioner is the uncle of Accused No.4. All the accused are alleged to have committed robbery by severely beating two elderly women (L.Ws.2 and 3) and stealing 17 tulas of gold ornaments. The police have already recovered 5 tulas of gold. Accused Nos.1 to 9 were arrested and enlarged on bail. There are specific overt acts attributed to the petitioner. Therefore, it is not appropriate to grant pre-arrest bail. Grant of pre-arrest bail would amount to providing a shield or protection to a person against whom specific overt acts are attributed. Grant of anticipatory bail is not a licence for commission of cognizable and non-bailable offences. Reliance placed on: Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565; Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1. Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Ss. 309(4), 309(6), 311 & 331(8) — Robbery — Elderly victims assaulted — Recovery effected — Accused Nos.1 to 9 enlarged on bail — Petitioner (driver) seeking anticipatory bail — Declined. Held, that the investigation is at a nascent stage. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner is imperative for eliciting material facts. If pre-arrest bail is granted, there is grave apprehension that the petitioner may not cooperate with the investigation and may tamper with witnesses or evidence. Hence, the petition is devoid of merit and stands dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to surrender before the learned Jurisdictional Court concerned within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and move an appropriate application for regular bail. The learned Jurisdictional Court is directed to dispose of the said application in accordance with law and on its own merits, after giving due opportunity to both sides including the learned Public Prosecutor.

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — S. 482 — Anticipatory Bail — Refusal of — Specific overt acts attributed — Custodial interrogation imperative — No ground to grant pre-arrest bail.

Held, that the allegation against the petitioner/Accused No.10 is that he acted as the driver of a vehicle in which he knowingly picked up and dropped some of the accused after the commission of the offence and that he participated in the recce conducted prior to the commission of the offence. The petitioner is the uncle of Accused No.4. All the accused are alleged to have committed robbery by severely beating two elderly women (L.Ws.2 and 3) and stealing 17 tulas of gold ornaments. The police have already recovered 5 tulas of gold. Accused Nos.1 to 9 were arrested and enlarged on bail.

There are specific overt acts attributed to the petitioner. Therefore, it is not appropriate to grant pre-arrest bail. Grant of pre-arrest bail would amount to providing a shield or protection to a person against whom specific overt acts are attributed. Grant of anticipatory bail is not a licence for commission of cognizable and non-bailable offences.

Reliance placed on: Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565; Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1.

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Ss. 309(4), 309(6), 311 & 331(8) — Robbery — Elderly victims assaulted — Recovery effected — Accused Nos.1 to 9 enlarged on bail — Petitioner (driver) seeking anticipatory bail — Declined.

Held, that the investigation is at a nascent stage. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner is imperative for eliciting material facts. If pre-arrest bail is granted, there is grave apprehension that the petitioner may not cooperate with the investigation and may tamper with witnesses or evidence. Hence, the petition is devoid of merit and stands dismissed.

However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to surrender before the learned Jurisdictional Court concerned within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and move an appropriate application for regular bail. The learned Jurisdictional Court is directed to dispose of the said application in accordance with law and on its own merits, after giving due opportunity to both sides including the learned Public Prosecutor.

APHC010503982025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3521]

FRIDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF OCTOBER

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9915/2025

Between:

Pinnamaneni Manoj ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

AND

The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

1.B.SUDHAKAR KUMAR

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:

1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Court made the following:

ORDER:

The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity „the BNSS‟) by the

Petitioner/Accused No.10, for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with

Crime No.45 of 2025 of Cheepurupalli Police Station, Vizianagaram District,

registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 309(4), 309(6),

311, 331(8) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short „the BNS‟).

2025:APHC:42556

2

CASE OF THE PROSECUTION:

2. Material averments stemming from the prosecution are that one Suresh

along with family went for pilgrimage on 17.05.2025 for holy dip in river in

Uttarakhand State. While going for pilgrimage, he has kept his mother in law

Chittamma in his house to accompany his mother Kasturibayi. On 24.05.2025

at 1 hours unknown culprits entered into Kasturibayi‟s house by break open

the northern side door in the first floor. While committing robbery, unknown

culprits beat Chittamma on right hand and on right eye with an iron rod and

caused bleeding injuries. Later unknown culprits went into the kitchen, brought

chilli powder and threw it into the eyes of Chittamma and Kasturibayi, later

Kasturibayi sustained grievous bleeding injury after the accused beat her on

forehead with an iron rod with a view to cause death. The unknown culprits

robbed ornaments of Chittamma and robbed gold chain from Kasturibayi‟s

neck and stole gold ornaments after break open the iron safe in the pooja

room, thereby a report was filed before the police and a case in Crime No.45

of 2025 was registered.

CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER:

3. Mr. B.Sudkhakar Kumar, learned counsel for the Petitioner respectfully

submits that the Petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and

has not committed any offence as alleged. The Petitioner is the sole earning

member of her family, and his arrest would cause irreparable hardship to his

dependents. The Petitioner is willing to abide by any condition that this Court

2025:APHC:42556

3

may deem fit and proper for the grant of anticipatory bail. The Petitioner has

got fixed abode.

4. It is further submitted that there is no recovery attributable to the

Petitioner and custodial interrogation period was over and such custody is not

warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. The Petitioner has

cooperated with the investigation and there is no likelihood of absconding or

tampering with the prosecution evidence. Therefore, it is prayed that this Court

may be pleased to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioner/Accused No.10 in the

interest of justice.

ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR:

5. Per contra, Mr. Neelotpal Ganji, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor

vehemently opposed granting of pre-arrest bail contending that the

investigation is at a nascent stage and the custodial interrogation of the

Petitioner is imperative for eliciting material facts. It is submitted that if the

Petitioner is granted pre-arrest bail, there is a grave apprehension that he may

not cooperate with the investigation and may evade the process of law.

6. It is further urged that the prosecution also apprehends that the

Petitioner may influence witnesses or tamper with evidence, thereby

obstructing the fair and impartial investigation. In view of the seriousness of

the allegations and the potential risk to the integrity of the investigation, it is

prayed that the instant bail application be dismissed.

2025:APHC:42556

4

7. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by

the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record.

POINT FOR CONSIDERATION:

8. In the light of the case of the prosecution and the contentions of the

learned Counsel for both the sides, now the point for consideration is:

“Whether the Petitioner is entitled for grant of pre-arrest bail?”

ANALYSIS:

9. The allegation against the petitioner/Accused No.10 is that he acted as

the driver of a vehicle in which he knowingly picked up and dropped some of

the accused after the commission of the offence. It is also alleged that he

participated in the recce conducted prior to the commission of the offence.

The petitioner is the uncle of Accused No.4. All the accused are alleged to

have committed a robbery by severely beating L.Ws.2 and 3, both elderly

women, and stealing 17 tulas of gold ornaments from them. The police have

already recovered 5 tulas of gold. Accused Nos.1 to 9 were arrested and have

since been enlarged on bail. Accused No.6 was granted regular bail by this

Court. The present petition has been filed seeking pre-arrest bail for the

petitioner/Accused No.10. However, there are specific overt acts attributed to

the petitioner. Therefore, this Court does not find it appropriate to grant prearrest bail to the petitioner.

2025:APHC:42556

5

10. In view of these circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to the grant

of pre-arrest bail, as it would amount to providing a shield or protection to a

person against whom specific overt acts attributed. Grant of pre-arrest bail is

not a license for the commission of cognizable and non-bailable offences, as

per the decisions of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v.

State of Panjab1

and Sushila Aggarwal v. State of (NCT of Delhi)2

.Hence,

there are no merits in the petition.

11. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. However, as per the

request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, liberty is granted to the

petitioner to surrender before the learned Jurisdictional Court concerned

within one (01) week from the date of receipt of copy of this order, and move

an appropriate application before the learned Jurisdictional Court concerned.

The learned Jurisdictional Court concerned is directed to dispose of the said

application in accordance with law, on its own merits by giving due and

sufficient opportunity to both including the learned Public Prosecutor

concerned, and pass appropriate orders.

_________________________

DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J

Date: 10.10.2025

S D P

1

(1980) 2 SCC 565

2

(2020) 5 SCC 1

2025:APHC:42556

6

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO

CRIMINAL PETITION No.9915 of 2025

Date:10.10.2025

S D P

2025:APHC:42556

A. Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 — Section 21(1); Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 — Procedure for seizure — Scope and applicability. — Action of the police authorities in seizing lorries of the petitioners in connection with FIR No.93 of 2025 alleging transportation of sand without valid documents — Held, seizure effected without following the procedure prescribed under the A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 — Not sustainable. — Authorities competent to act only in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.43, Industries & Commerce (Mines-III) Department, dated 08.07.2024, which specifies penalties for offences of unauthorized transportation of sand — No power to seize vehicles conferred under the said G.O. — Only penalty can be levied as prescribed. B. G.O.Ms.No.43, Industries & Commerce (Mines-III) Department, dated 08.07.2024 — Clause 6(III)(Q)(i) — Interpretation. — Provides for imposition of penalties for transportation of sand without valid way bill/invoice and other related offences — Specifies graded penalties depending on vehicle type and frequency of offence — Held, the said G.O. forms a comprehensive code regarding penalties — Vehicle seizure not contemplated thereunder. C. FIR — Registration under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Sections 303(2), 318(4) r/w 3(5) — Along with Section 21(1) of the MMDR Act, 1957 — Effect. — Registration of FIR by itself does not empower police authorities to seize vehicles where specific statutory procedure is prescribed under Mines Rules and departmental Government Orders — Remedy of the State is to impose penalty as per G.O.Ms.No.43 — Vehicles liable to be released on compliance with penalty procedure. D. Writ Jurisdiction — Article 226 of the Constitution of India — Illegal seizure — Release of vehicles — Directions. — Writ petition disposed of following earlier decision of this Court in W.P.No.14271 of 2025, dated 17.06.2025 — Respondent authorities directed to pass orders for levy of penalty, if any, strictly in terms of Clause 6(III)(Q)(i) of G.O.Ms.No.43 — — Upon payment of such penalty and production of proof of ownership, the seized vehicles to be released by the 3rd respondent — No order as to costs. E. Precedent Followed: W.P.No.14271 of 2025, dated 17.06.2025 — Applied. Result: Writ Petition disposed of. Directions issued for levy and payment of penalty; on such payment, vehicles to be released. No costs.

A. Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 — Section 21(1);

Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 — Procedure for seizure — Scope and applicability.

— Action of the police authorities in seizing lorries of the petitioners in connection with FIR No.93 of 2025 alleging transportation of sand without valid documents — Held, seizure effected without following the procedure prescribed under the A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 — Not sustainable.

— Authorities competent to act only in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.43, Industries & Commerce (Mines-III) Department, dated 08.07.2024, which specifies penalties for offences of unauthorized transportation of sand — No power to seize vehicles conferred under the said G.O. — Only penalty can be levied as prescribed.

B. G.O.Ms.No.43, Industries & Commerce (Mines-III) Department, dated 08.07.2024 — Clause 6(III)(Q)(i) — Interpretation.

— Provides for imposition of penalties for transportation of sand without valid way bill/invoice and other related offences — Specifies graded penalties depending on vehicle type and frequency of offence —

Held, the said G.O. forms a comprehensive code regarding penalties — Vehicle seizure not contemplated thereunder.

C. FIR — Registration under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Sections 303(2), 318(4) r/w 3(5) — Along with Section 21(1) of the MMDR Act, 1957 — Effect.

— Registration of FIR by itself does not empower police authorities to seize vehicles where specific statutory procedure is prescribed under Mines Rules and departmental Government Orders — Remedy of the State is to impose penalty as per G.O.Ms.No.43 — Vehicles liable to be released on compliance with penalty procedure.

D. Writ Jurisdiction — Article 226 of the Constitution of India — Illegal seizure — Release of vehicles — Directions.

— Writ petition disposed of following earlier decision of this Court in W.P.No.14271 of 2025, dated 17.06.2025 —

Respondent authorities directed to pass orders for levy of penalty, if any, strictly in terms of Clause 6(III)(Q)(i) of G.O.Ms.No.43 —

— Upon payment of such penalty and production of proof of ownership, the seized vehicles to be released by the 3rd respondent —

No order as to costs.

E. Precedent Followed:

W.P.No.14271 of 2025, dated 17.06.2025 — Applied.

Result:

Writ Petition disposed of. Directions issued for levy and payment of penalty; on such payment, vehicles to be released. No costs.

APHC010540872025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

[0]

FRIDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF OCTOBER

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM

WRIT PETITION NO: 28043/2025

Between:

1. MALLEMPATI SURESH, S/O. RAGHUPATHI, AGED 44 YEARS, R/O.

10-6- 147/4, RTC COLONY, ROAD NO.2, KHANAURAM HAVELI

URBAN, KHAMMAM, STATE OF TELANGANA.

2. . DONDAPATI PURNAIAH, , S/O. DASARADHA RAMAIAH, AGED 35

YEARS, R/O. D. NO. 4-225/A, NEAR KMR HOSPITAL, NANDIGAMA,

NTR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

3. CHALAMALLA KRISHNAVENI,, W/O. VENKATESWARA RAO, AGED

48 YEARS, R/O. H. NO. 15-7-R00015, ROTARY NAGAR,

KHANAURAM HAVELI URBAN, KHAMMAM, STATE OF

TELANGANA.

...PETITIONER(S)

AND

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

AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

2. THE TAHSILDAR, JEELUGUMILLI MANDAL, ELURU DISTRICT,

ANDHRA PRADESH.

3. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, , JEELUGUMILLI POLICE

STATION, ELURU DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

...RESPONDENT(S):

2025:APHC:42462

2

 MRK,J

W.P.No.28043 of 2025

2

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1.V SAI KUMAR

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.GP FOR HOME

2.GP FOR REVENUE

3.GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY

2025:APHC:42462

3

 MRK,J

W.P.No.28043 of 2025

3

The Court made the following ORDER:

The writ petition is filed challenging the action of the respondents in

seizing the Lorries bearing Nos.TG 04 T 3663, AP 39 UX 4554, TS 04 UE

2565 and TS 04 UE 6696 belonging to the petitioners, in connection with

FIR No.93 of 2025, without following the procedure under the Andhra

Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966.

2. Heard Sri Chetan, learned counsel representing

Sri V.Sai Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned

Government Pleader for Mines and Geology appearing for the respondents

3. With the consent of both the parties, the writ petition is disposed of at

the stage of admission.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners have

been using the subject vehicles for transportation purposes only. On

07.10.2025, the 3rd respondent herein seized the vehicles alleging that the

petitioners have been transporting sand without valid documents.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the 3rd respondent

has illegally seized the vehicles of the petitioners and registered FIR No.93

of 2025 under Sections 303(2), 318(4) r/w Section 3(5) Bharatiya Nyaya

Sanhita, 2023 and 21(1) Mines and Minerals (Development and

Regulation) Act, 1957. Hence, he prays the Court to direct the respondents

2025:APHC:42462

4

 MRK,J

W.P.No.28043 of 2025

4

to release the vehicles. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel

for the petitioners relies on a decision of this Court in W.P.No.14271 of

2025, and prays the Court to dispose of the Writ Petition in terms of the

said order. He further relies on G.O.Ms.No.43 dated 08.07.2024.

6. The relevant clauses of Clause 6(III)(Q)(i) of the said G.O.Ms.No.43

Industries and Commerce (Mines-III), Department, dated 08.07.2024, reads

as follows:

Q. Offences and Penalties:

i. In case of the vehicles engaged in illegal/ un-authorized

excavation in the prohibited areas (i.e., within 500 meters from the

Ground water structures, Bridges, Dams, Railway lines

and cross drainage structures etc.), transportation of sand outside

the State and found transporting sand without valid Sand Way bill

/invoice shall be penalized as follows;

Vehicle Type First Time (In Rs.) Second Time (In Rs.)

Tractor Upto 10,000/- Rs.10,001/- to 20,000/-

Lorry fitted with upto 10

tires capacity Upto 25,000/- Rs.25,001/- to 50,000/-

Lorry fitted with above

10 tires Upto 50,000/-

Rs.50,001/- to

1,00,000/-

Machinery Upto 50,000/-

Rs.50,001/- to

1,00,000/-

Thus, he argues that the authorities cannot seize the vehicle for any

alleged violations, they could, at the best levy only penalties.

7. Considering the submissions of both the learned counsel and upon

perusing the material on record, the Writ Petition is disposed of in terms of

2025:APHC:42462

5

 MRK,J

W.P.No.28043 of 2025

5

the order passed in W.P.No.14271 of 2025, dated 17.06.2025 directing the

respondent authorities to pass appropriate orders in terms of clause

6(III)(Q)(i), of G.O.Ms.No.43 Industries and Commerce (Mines-III),

Department, dated 08.07.2024, for levying penalty, if any. After the levy of

penalty, and on payment of such penalty, the seized vehicles shall be

released by the 3rd respondent on producing the receipt of such payment

and ownership documents of the vehicles to the satisfaction of the 3rd

respondent. There shall be no order as to costs.

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

closed.

____________________________________

JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM

Dated: 10.10.2025

Note: Issue CC today

B/o

Ivd

2025:APHC:42462

6

 MRK,J

W.P.No.28043 of 2025

6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM

WRIT PETITION NO: 28043/2025

Dated: 10.10.2025

Note: Issue CC today

B/o

Ivd

2025:APHC:42462