APHC010129632025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] MONDAY ,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 6672/2025 Between: Chandrakala ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. A PADMA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: 2 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 6672/2025 ORDER: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India seeking the following reliefs:- “to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the 2nd respondent in withdrawal of his notice dated 27.01.2025 is illegal, irregular, arbitrary, unreasonable unwarranted, unconstitutional, unjustified and unsustainable and set-aside the said notices and pass such other order. 2. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents. 3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is one of the coparcener in the joint family and she is entitled for a share in the joint family property. For enforcing the rights of the petitioner, she instituted O.S.No.112 of 2022 for partition of the suit schedule property against respondent Nos.4 to 6 herein. Pending the said suit, respondent No.4 alienated a part of the suit schedule property in favour of respondent No.6 through a registered sale deed dated 09.06.2022. He further submits that pursuant to the sale of part of suit schedule property to the respondent No.6 by way of sale deed, respondent No.6 submitted an application seeking for mutation in the revenue records in compliance of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 3 1971. Having known about the application of the 6th respondent for mutation, the petitioner submitted objections and also brought to the notice of the respondents regarding the pendency of the partition suit. Ignoring the objections, the 2nd respondent is taking steps for mutation. 4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the said action of the 2nd respondent was challenged before this Court in W.P.No.30684 of 2024, wherein this Court was pleased to pass an order which is extracted hereunder: “Having regard to the above facts, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition, at the stage of admission, without going into merits, directing the Tahsildar (Respondent No.2) to pass a Speaking Order in accordance with law and taking into account the pendency of the Suit bearing O.S.No.112 of 2022, pending on the file of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Madakasira and also the Notice given to the Tahsildar under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. Needless to state that the Writ Petitioner is at liberty to approach the Civil Court by moving the appropriate Application for any interim order. There shall be a direction to the Respondent No.2 to maintain Status-quo obtaining as on today for a period of four (4) weeks to enable the parties to avail appropriate remedies as available to them under law.” 5. The order passed in W.P.No.30684 of 2024 was assailed by way of Writ Appeal No.51 of 2025, wherein the Division Bench of 4 this Court was pleased to pass an order dated 22.01.2025, which is extracted hereunder: “8. In that view of the matter, without going into the question of whether any notice has been received by the appellant or not, this Writ Appeal is disposed of with the following directions: 1) The Tahsildar shall issue a fresh notice to the petitioner setting out the grounds on which mutation is sought by the 6th respondent along with the material produced and submitted by the 6th respondent to the Tahsildar; 2) The appellant is granted two weeks time from the date of receipt of the notice from the Tahsidlar to file her objections; 3) The Tahsildar, after receipt of such objections shall consider the said objections and pass orders, as thought fit especially keeping in view the pendency of O.S.No.112 of 2022; 4) In the event of the appellant not filing her objections within the two weeks stipulated above, it shall be open to the Tahsildar to pass appropriate orders; 5) Needless to say, any orders passed by the Tahsildar shall be after giving due opportunity of hearing to the appellant and in accordance with the directions of the leaned Single Judge.” 5 6. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Division Bench of this Court specifically directed respondent No.3 to issue fresh notice by assigning the reasons and also by producing the material on which basis the 2nd respondent proceeded for mutation pursuant to the application of the 6th respondent. It is further directed after receipt of notice, call for objections and after receipt of the objections, directed to pass speaking order by considering the objections filed by the petitioner. But dehorsing the entire steps/procedure as directed by this Court, the 2nd respondent issued a statutory notice dated 27.01.2025 for mutation in favour of the 6th respondent, which is contrary to the directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court dated 22.01.2025. As such the impugned notice is liable to be set aside. 7. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for the respondents submits that since it is a statutory notice calling for objections not only from the petitioners but also from the others, the petitioner is entitled to submit objections, if any and the 2nd respondent will consider the said objections and pass appropriate orders. Therefore, the action of the 2nd respondent is in compliance of the statutory provisions as contemplated. Hence, the notice issued by the 2nd respondent need not be interfered. 8. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government 6 Pleader for the respondents and on perusal of the material placed on record, it is observed that the Division Bench of this Court specifically directed the 2nd respondent to follow the procedure as extracted supra. It is a settled law that once the Constitution Court directed the authority to proceed further as per directions of the judgment, the respondent cannot be permitted to deviate the directions or procedure as was directed by this Court. In the present case it appears that the 2nd respondent issued impugned notice without adhering to the procedure or directions as contemplated by this Court vide judgment dated 22.01.2025. As contended by the learned Government Pleader that since respondent No.2 issued a statutory notice calling for objections, the petitioner is also entitled for objections, it is in compliance of the orders dated 22.01.2025 passed in the Writ Appeal is not valid submission and lacks merits. The said contention of the learned Government Pleader is contrary to the principle laid down by this Court and also deviation to the orders of this court, on the guise of statutory compliance such an action cannot be permitted. 9. In view of the reasons as stated above, the Writ Petition is allowed by setting aside the notice dated 27.01.2025 issued by the 2nd respondent. However, the respondents are at liberty to proceed further in accordance with the directions of the Division Bench of this 7 Court in Writ Appeal No.51 of 2025. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel miscellaneous application, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 17.03.2025 TTPPSS 8 106 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 6672 of 2025 17.03.2025 TTPPSS