IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR V^; -- jf. J -VI ■Tv X- Sf- WRIT PETITION NO: 6470 OF 2025 Between: Padala Rohini Aparna, D/o Padala Veerabhadra Lakshmi Narayana Reddy, aged about 23 years. Flat No.1, Plot No.11, APP Colony, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra 'Pradesh, Revenue Department, Secretariat Building, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Rep. by its Principal Secretary. 2. The District Collector, East Godavari District, Rajamahendravaram. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajamahendravaram Division, East Godavari District. 4. The Tahsildar, Bikkavolu Mandal, East Godavari District. ...Respondents 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 a direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 4th respondent in rejecting the application of the petitioner to incorporate her name in the revenue records for the lands situated in Sy.No.364/1, 2 and 3 and Sy.No.365/1, 2, 3 to an extent of Ac.4.78 cents of Komaripalem Village, Bikkavolu Mandal, East Godavari District through Proceedings in Ref.B/118/2023, dated 16.02.2023 is highly illegal, arbitrary, violation of principles of natural justice, contrary to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971, in violation of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and also contrary to the / Division Bench Judgment of Hon’ble High Court rendered in the case of Erukula Lima Vs Government of A.P and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents No.2 to 4 to incorporate the name of the petitioner in the revenue records in respect of the agricultural land in Sy.No.364/1, 2 and 3 and Sy.No.365/1, 2, 3 to an extent of Ac.4.78 cents of Komaripalem Village, Bikkavolu Mandal, East Godavari District. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 respondents No.2 to 4 to incorporate the name of the petitioner in the revenue records in respect of the agricultural land in Sy.No.364/1, 2 and 3 and Sy.No.365/1. 2, 3 to an extent of Ac.4.78 cents of Komaripalem Village, Bikkavolu Mandal, East Godavari District pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI V V N NARAYANA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following order: 1 APHC010127172025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3505] THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 6470/2025 Between: ...PETITIONER Padala Rohini Aparna AND ...RESPONDENT(S) The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.VV N NARAYANA RAO Counsel for the Respondent{S): 1.GPFOR REVENUE 2 The Court made the following order: The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the proceedings in Ref.B/118/2023, dated 16.02.2023, issued by the 4^^ respondent- Tahsildar, in rejecting the application of the petitioner to incorporate her name in the revenue records for the lands to an extent of Ac.4.78 cents in Sy.No.364/1, 2 & 3 and Sy.No.365/1, 2 & 3 of Komaripalem Village, Bikkavolu Mandal and East Godavari District. It is the case of the petitioner that her father, Sri Padala Veerabhadra Lakshmi Narayana Reddy, executed a gift deed vide document No.6311 of 2022, dated 21.12.2022, bequeathing the 2. subject land in her favour. Upon execution of the said gift deed, the petitioner claims to have made an application to the 4*^ respondent requesting to mutate her name in the revenue records. However, the said application was rejected by an endorsement dated 16.02.2023, the ground that an appeal vide A.S.No.204 of 2009, is pending adjudication before this Court between the father of the petitioner and the State Bank of India, Commercial Branch, Main Road, Kakinada. It is further case of the petitioner that, during the pendency of the appeal, the matter was settled between the Bank and the father of the petitioner including other barrowers. In that connection. Bank issued a letter dated 06.01.2018, whereby and receipt of amount of on whereunder acknowledging the % 3 towards full and final settlement of the loan Rs.2,44,50,236/- account No.SBI OTS 2017 on 30.12.2017, and accordingly, the said loan was closed. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned 3. Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. On perusal of the impugned endorsement, it is clear that, the 4. case of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that, appeal is pending consideration before this Court in A.S.No.204 of 2009 between the father of the petitioner and SBI, Commercial Branch Kakinada. Though the petitioner filed letter dated 06.01.2018 issued by the Bank stating that, the loan account was closed after payment of Rs.2,44,50,236/- towards full and final settlement, the said letter was not filed along with her application before the 4*^ respondent, therefore, the action of the 4*^ respondent cannot be found fault in issuing the impugned endorsement. In support of his contention. learned counsel for the petitioner, relied on the judgment of Erukala Uma V. Government of Andhra Pradesh and another\ and the relevant portion of the judgment reads as follows: Keeping this legislative scheme in mind, it is difficult to accept the contention that the moment any civil suit is filed, the authorities under the ROR Act have to stay their hands and cannot exercise any of the statutory powers under the ROR Act, awaiting decision of the civil Court. The remedies under the ROR Act are provided to give expeditious relief in respect of 10. ^ 2014(2)ALD 228(DB) m nr 4 rights in land and pattadar pass books. Such right, therefore, does not get affected merely because of pendency of any civil suit before any Court. But Section 8(2) of the Act specifies that only the decree in such suits seeking declaration of right under Chapter VI to Specific Relief Act would be binding on the authorities under the ROR Act.” 5. As the petitioner specifically pleaded that, there is no amount due to the Bank and the loan was also closed in the year 2018 itself, the impugned proceedings in Ref.B/118/2023, dated 16.02.2023, issued by the 4^*^ respondent-Tahsildar, is hereby set aside, and the matter is remitted back to the 4'^ respondent for fresh consideration. Further, the petitioner is directed to place all the relevant documents, including the letter dated 06.01.2018, issued by the Bank, before the 4**^ respondent. On receipt of the same, the 4'^ respondent shall consider the case of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders, by affording an opportunity of being heard. The 4*"^ respondent is further directed to pass orders within a period of eight (08) weeks therefrom. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. 6. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall Sd/~ N. NAGAIV5MA assistant, registrar ITofficer stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SEC / To 1 The Principal Secretary, State of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue Department, Secretariat Building, Velagapudi, Guntur Dis^ict. 2. The District Collector, East Godavari District, Rajamahendravara^m. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajamahendravaram Division, East Godavari District. ■ r^• * ■ + 4 The Tahsildar, Bikkavolu Mandal, East GodavariDistnct. 5. One CC to Sri VV N Narayana Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCS to GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 7. Two CD Copies RAM HIGH COURT DATED:13/03/2025 ORDER WP.No.6470 of 2025 5 2 3 APR 2025 ^ * Current Seciion .f DISPOSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS