IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA WRIT PETITION No.37413 OF 2022 Between:- Duggirala Srinivasa Rao … Petitioner and State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, and others … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Mr.Bolla Venkata Rama Rao Counsel for R.1 to R.4 : The G.P. for Revenue Counsel for R.5 to R.8 : --- ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4. Notice to respondent Nos.5 to 8 is deemed not necessary, in view of the settled legal position apart from the factual position as noted from the instructions dated 25.11.2022 furnished by the 4th respondent. 2. The writ petition is filed seeking to declare the action of respondent Nos.2 to 4 in marking the entries in respect of the subject matter lands in the revenue records digitally in red colour, without issuing any notice and giving opportunity to 2 the petitioner as illegal, unjust, arbitrary, contrary to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (the PPB Act), and for a consequential direction to delete the red colour marking in respect of the property in question. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while referring to the averments made in the writ petition, inter alia submits that the subject matter properties originally belongs to one Mr.Surya Prakash Rao and after his death, his wife became the absolute owner and possessor of the subject matter lands having succeeded to the same being the sole legal heir. He submits that basing on the registered settlement deeds executed by her, the petitioner’s name was mutated in the revenue records. While so, the petitioner came to know that respondent Nos.5 to 8 filed O.S.No.17 of 2022 on the file of the Court of IX Additional District Judge, Kovvur against the petitioner and others for declaration of title and consequential injunction in respect of the subject matter property and the petitioner is contesting the same by filing a written statement and no interim orders were passed in the said suit. He submits that despite the above position, the 4th respondent, without issuing 3 any notice or passing any order, marked the subject matter property in the revenue records in red colour and thereby created a cloud on the same. He submits that the action of the Revenue officials is not sustainable and places reliance on the decision of a learned Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.18940 of 2020, dated 20.10.2020. 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, on the other hand, placed a copy of the remarks dated 25.11.2022 received from the 4th respondent, for perusal of this Court, which goes to show that in view of the suit O.S.No.17 of 2022 filed by the unofficial respondents and in the light of the Circular Instructions dated 09.4.2022 issued by the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration and Special Chief Secretary to Government (CCLA), the land in question was kept in ‘Dispute Register’ till the disposal of the above said suit. Though the remarks refers to passing of a speaking order dated 19.10.2022, the same is not enclosed to the instructions. 5. Be that as it may, from a reading of the said remarks/ instructions, it is discernible that only on the premise that a suit was filed, the property is kept in the ‘Dispute Register’ by showing relevant entries in red colour. There is no reference to 4 issuance of any notices before resorting to such an action. Further, except reference to mere filing of the suit, there is no mention about granting of any interim injunction/orders, by virtue of which, no transactions can be entertained during the pendency of the suit. In the absence of any such order, in the considered opinion of this Court, the 4th respondent is not justified in marking the entries in the revenue records with red colour digitally or placing the subject matter property in the ‘Dispute Register’. Though a reference is made to the Circular Instructions dated 09.4.2022 of the CCLA, which deals with disposal of mutation applications, the action taken by the 4th respondent with reference to the said instructions is also not tenable. The relevant portion of the said instructions reads as follows: 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 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 monitored by creating a separate module in webland, and the case shall be closed only after the court passes orders on the matter. 6. In the decision relied on by the counsel for the petitioner, the learned Judge, while referring to the relevant Rules framed 5 under the PPB Act, disposed of the writ petition, inter alia holding as follows: Therefore, the words “a notice to all persons known or believed to be interested to the effect that the registry will be made” assumes importance in the present case. According to the petitioner, no notice was issued to this petitioner, the respondent also did not dispute the contention of petitioner about failure to issue notice. Therefore, on the ground of violation of procedure prescribed under Rule 9(1)(c)(ii), the order challenged is liable to be set-aside, without further going into the merits of the case. Therefore, placing the property of this petitioner in disputed register without following the procedure contemplated under Rule 9(1)(c)(ii) is an illegality and the same is liable to be set-aside. Hence, on the ground of violation of Rule 9(1)(c)(ii), the order placing this petitioner’s property in disputed register is hereby set aside, declaring the action of the fourth respondent as illegal and arbitrary. 7. In the light of the above settled legal position and as the action taken by the 4th respondent is contrary to the Rules made under the PPB Act, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed, as prayed for. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________ NINALA JAYASURYA, J December 01, 2022. vasu