APHC010128082025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 6993/2025 Between: Maskin Ram Prasad and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. A CHANDRAIH NAIDU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO:6993/2025 ORDER: The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following relief: “to issue a Writ, direction, order or orders more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned Notice in R.C.B.No.82/2005, dated 21.02.2025 issued by the 4th respondent as illegal, arbitrary, malafide, without power or jurisdiction and authority by setting aside the same and consequently direct the official respondents not to entertain any application of the unofficial respondents herein in respect of the mutations to an extent of Ac.3.57 cents in Survey No.154 of S.Lingamdinne village, Gonegandla Mandal, Kurnool District and pass such other order or orders….” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondents. 3. The case of the petitioners herein is that respondent No.4 herein cannot issue impugned notice dated 17.03.2025 contrary to law and cannot call for any explanation from the petitioners since the unofficial respondents/ plaintiffs filed suit in O.S.No.209/2022 on the file of Junior Civil Judge Court, Pattikonda seeking for declaration of title in their favour. Moreover, once suit is filed for declaration of title, the unofficial respondents herein cannot seek for mutation in their favour since they themselves admitted in the suit that they have not conferred absolute title or vested rights with the title, over the subject property. Hence, issuance of such impugned notice is contrary to law. However, the petitioners herein submitted an explanation by way of legal notice dated 20.03.2025. hence, the writ petition. 4. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for the respondents furnished written instructions dated 20.03.2025, wherein, the operative portion reads as follows: “It is submitted that, the respondent No. 7 i.e. K.Ayyapu Reddy S/o K. Dasthagiri is submitted a representation through "Public Grievance Redressal System (PGRS) vide grievance No. KUR202501064395, Dated: 06.01.2025. Accordingly the respondent no.4 is issued a notice vide Rc.B.82/2025, Dated: 21.02.2025 for conduct of enquiry on 3.57 Acres in Sy.No.154 of S.Lingamdinne Village of Gonegandla Mandal. It is submitted that, during enquiry the respondent Nos. 5 to 8 is reveals that they have already filed an O.S. No. 209 of 2022 in Hon'ble Junior Civil Judge Court, Pattikonda for the title of 3.57 Acres in Sy.No.154 of S.Lingamdinne Village of Gonegandla Mandal and the petitioners 3 persons are also respondents and it is still pending in the Hon'ble Civil Court, Pattikonda, Kurnool District. In the circumstances explained above, an O.S. No. 209 of 2022 is pending in Hon'ble Junior Civil Judge Court, Pattikonda and the respondent no.4 have conducted an enquiry for grievance No. KUR202501064395, Dated: 06.01.2025. 5. He further submits that since the unofficial respondents filed application under PGRS, respondent No.4 has no other option except to dispose of the same in accordance with law. He further submits that respondent No.4 is cautious about the pending suit between both the parties. Therefore, it is only for conducting an enquiry and to issue endorsement as per the request of the unofficial respondents herein under PGRS scheme. 6. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for the respondents, on perusal of the material placed on record, it is observed that there is a civil dispute pending between the petitioners as well as the unofficial respondents. Therefore trying to alter existing record by the respondent authorities may defeat the interest of the parties who approached to settle their rights through civil of law. It is further observed from the instructions issued by respondents that it is only for enquiry pursuant to the application under PGRS scheme and since the petitioners submitted their explanation by way of notice dated 20.03.2025, the same would be considered and appropriate orders would be passed in accordance with law. 7. In view of the reasons stated above, this Court is of the considered view that he present writ petition can be disposed of, directing respondent No.4 herein after conducting enquiry and after considering the explanation and also the nature of the suit filed by the unofficial respondents, to pass appropriate orders in accordance with Section 8(2) in Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971, within a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition shall stand closed. _______________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 26.03.2025 BSP 39 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION No.6993 of 2025 26.03.2025 BSP