1 APHC010552702023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 28611/2023 Between: 1. Karamala Sultan Salavuddin, s/o. Late karamala rajak miah, aged about 80 years, business, rio. Door no. 60/63, trunk road, rayachoty town, post and mandal, annamaiah district. Pin code-516269 ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State Of Andhra Pradesh, , Rep By Its Principle Secretary Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings Velagapudi, Andhra Predesh 2. The Joint Collector, Rayachoty, Annamayya District 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Rayachoti, Annamayya District 4. The Tahsildar, Rayachoty Town, Post, Mandal, Annamaiah District. 5. Karamala Nazebuddin, S/O K. Hafeez Abdul Rajak, aged about 55 years, r/o. Door no. 25/19, Irusappan street, royapettah, chennai - 600014. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction, one more particularly in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring die action of the 4th Respondent in mutating the name of the 5th Respondnt 1-B Namuna in respect of land admeasuring Ac.1-15 cents situated in Sy.No.805-2, Rayachoty Village, Kadapa District (Annamayya Ditrict) belonging to the Petitioner in a complete contravention of 2 the provisions of the AP Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbook Act,1971 besides disregarding the orders passed by the 2nd and 3rd Respondent as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and set-aside the same and con equently direct the respondent not to issue title deed cum pass book in favor of the 5th Respondent and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2023 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.1 to 4 not to issue title deed cum pattadar pass book in respect of land admeasuring Ac.1-15 cents situated in Sy.No.805-2, Rayachoty Village, Kadapa District (Annamayya District) in favour of the 56 Respondent pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass IA 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 vacate the interim order dated: 01.11.2023 in lA.NO. 1 OF 2023 in W.P. No. 28611 of 2023, in view of the facts submitted supra and dismiss the above writ petition as it is devoid of any merits in the interest of the justice and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 vacate the interim order dated 01.11.2023 in IA.No.1 of 2023 in WP.No.28611 of 2023 and dismiss the Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P BADRINATH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. DODDAKA HARSHA VARDHAN 3 The Court made the following order: This writ petition is filed questioning the action of the 4th respondent in mutating the name of the 5th respondent in 1-B Namuna with respect to the subject property admeasuring Ac.1.15 cents situated in Sy.No.805-2 in Rayachoty village, Kadapa district, belonging to the petitioner, without following due process of law. 2. Heard Ms K.Tanusha, learned counsel representing learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri D.Harsha Vardhan, learned counsel for 5th respondent and Sri Venkata Satyanarayana, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit contended that, the petitioner is the absolute owner/possessor of the subject property and his name was also mutated in the Revenue records and also, pattadar pass book has been issued to him. She further submitted that, the 5th respondent’s father (K.Abdul Rajak) and K.Abdul Gaffar filed a petition before Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) for cancellation of petitioner’s pattadar passbook and for issuing a fresh pattadar passbook in their favour but the RDO, upon conducting detailed enquiry, passed orders dated 18.04.2011 and thereby directed the parties to approach the civil court to establish their title over the patta lands. She further submitted that, the Joint Collector, Kadapa also upheld the orders of the RDO in the appeal filed by the 5th respondent’s father (K.Abdul Rajak) and K.Abdul Gaffar 4 on 10.02.2014. She further submitted that, since then the 5th respondent has not approached the civil court nor interfered with the petitioner’s possession over the subject property but later, it was found that 1-B Namuna/adangal was mutated in the name of 5th respondent with regard to subject property, without issuing any notice to the petitioner, as contemplated under Section 5 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land Pattadar Passbook Act, 1971 and contrary to the settled principles of law. In support of her contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment passed in W.P.No.22285 of 2016 and also relied on the Full Bench judgment of this Hon'ble Court in Chinnam Pandurangam V. Mandal Revenue Officer, Serilingampally Mandal1 and accordingly prayed to protect the interest of the petitioner. 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue while relying on the counter affidavit filed by the 4th respondent submitted that, the mutation file pertaining to the incorporation of the name of the 5th respondent is not traced in their office and however, mutation entries in the revenue records, if any are subject to verification, enquiry and due process under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land Pattadar Passbook Act, 1971. He fairly conceded that, the authorities ought to have issued notice to the petitioner before incorporating 5th respondent’s name in the 1-B namuna/adangal. He further submitted that, pursuant to the interim orders passed by this court, the authorities have not issued pattadar passbook and title deed to the 5th respondent. Accordingly, prayed to pass appropriate orders in that regard. 1 2007(6) ALD 348 5 5. Learned counsel for the 5th respondent submitted that, there is neither illegality nor procedural irregularity in mutating the 5th respondent name in the revenue records, if at all the petitioner has any grievance against the same, he has to approach competent appellate authority by filing an appeal but without doing the same, the petitioner has straightaway filed the present writ petition which is not maintainable. As such prayed to dismiss the writ petition being meritless. 6. Perused the record and considered the submissions of both the learned counsel. 7. Admittedly, the pattadar passbook filed by the petitioner shows that he is in the possession of the subject property, whereas the latest adangal dated 25.08.2023, shows that the 5th respondent's name has been mutated with regard to subject property. 8. Section 5 of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land Pattadar Passbook Act 1971, r/w Rules 5(3) of A.P. ROR Rules specifies the procedure to be followed for making amendment in Revenue records. Rule 5(3) of the A.P. ROR Rules reads thus: “5(3). The recording authority shall, before carrying out any amendment in the record of rights under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) issue a notice in writing to all persons whose names are entered in the record of rights and who are interested in or affected by the amendment and to any other persons whom he has reason to believe to be interested therein or affected thereby to show cause within the period specified therein as to why the amendment should not be carried out A copy of the amendment and the notice aforesaid shall also be published in such manner as may be prescribed The recording authority shall consider every objection made in that behalf and after making such enquiry as may be prescribed pass such order in relation thereto as he deems fit.” 6 9. As per Rule 5(3) of A.P. ROR Rules, a notice has to be issued to the person whose name is entered in the record of rights and who are interested in or affected by the amendment. Evidently, the 5th respondent’s name was mutated with respect to the subject property as per adangal dated 25.08.2023 but there are no mutation orders in favour of the 5th respondent. While so, it is the specific contention of the petitioner that, no notice, as required under Rule 5(3), was issued to him. Further, as there is no material evidencing that the authorities have followed due process of law before incorporating the 5th respondent name in the revenue records, this court is of the firm opinion that, the authorities have incorporated the name of the 5th respondent in the adangal without following the procedure of law. In view of the same and taking into consideration the judgment passed in W.P.No.22285 of 2016, this court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: “The respondent authorities shall restore the name of the petitioner in the 1-B Namuna/adangal with respect to the subject property. However, the authorities are not precluded from taking steps in accordance with law after hearing both the parties.” Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI BRS