APHC010143442021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3505] FRIDAY ,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 9496/2021 Between: Poleboyina Sreenivasulu, ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M R S SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. THANDAVA YOGESH 2 The Court made the following order: The petitioner claims that he is the absolute owner and possessor of lands admeasuring an extent of Ac.0.56 cents in Sy.No.108/1, an extent of Ac.0.20 cents in Sy.No.108/4 and an extent of Ac.0.74 cents in Sy.No.161 of Kagithalagudem Village, Cumbum Mandal, Markapur Division, Prakasam District. It is also the case of the petitioner that the respondents issued pattadar passbooks and title deeds in his favor by duly mutating his name in 1B-Register and Adangals in respect of the subject properties. It is his further case that, in respect of land to an extent of Ac.0.56 cents in Sy.No.108/1, the 5th respondent filed application seeking to mutate its name in the revenue records. Having come to know about the same, the petitioner claims to have made a representation dated 27.02.2021, to the 4th respondent requesting him not to issue pattadar passbooks in favor of the 5th respondent. The said representation was forwarded to the 2nd respondent and in turn by proceedings dated 18.03.2021, the 2nd respondent directed the 4th respondent to enquire into the matter. It is further case of the petitioner that despite the same, the 4th respondent without issuing any notice or conducting any enquiry, mutated the name of the 5th respondent in the revenue records. It 3 is further contended that, he came to know about mutation of the 5th respondent’s name on 04.03.2021, and immediately filed the present writ petition. 2. The 4th respondent filed counter affidavit stating that one Sri Angam Nageswara Rao s/o Ramaiah resident of Cumbum Village applied for mutation of 5th respondent’s name by enclosing Encumbrance Certificate and Registration Document standing in the name of the 5th respondent through Mee seva on 02.02.2021, over an extent of Ac.0.56 cents in Sy.No.108/1 of the said village. While processing the said application, a notice in Form-8 dated 08.02.2021, was published in Grama Panchayat Office calling for objections. As no objections were received, the 5th respondent’s name was mutated in revenue records, after following due procedure. 3. The 5th respondent filed counter affidavit stating that the name of its vendor had been recorded in the revenue records even prior to the existence of the petitioner’s name. It is further contended that, the petitioner does not have any right, title or interest over the lands in dispute, as the gift deed executed in his favor was cancelled long ago. Therefore, the 4th respondent rightly mutated his name and prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 4 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and learned counsel for the 5th respondent. 5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner’s name existed in the revenue records before the 5th respondent’s name was mutated. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner submitted representation dated 27.02.2021 to the respondents, requesting them not to mutate the 5th respondent’s name over the land in dispute. Despite the same, the 4th respondent without issuing any notice to the petitioner, mutated the 5th respondent’s name by deleting the petitioner’s name from the revenue records. Though the 4th respondent claims that no objections were received pursuant to notice issued in Form-8 dated 08.02.2021, which was published in Gram Panchayat Office, he failed to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 22.07.2021, which was made even before the mutation is effected in favor of the 5th respondent. Further, when the name of the petitioner was already recorded in the revenue records, it is incumbent on the part of the 4th respondent to issue a notice to the petitioner before initiating any action in the matter. Admittedly no such notice was issued. 5 6. Though the parties have raised several contentions in respect of title over the land in dispute, this Court is not inclined to go into the merits of the matter, as the 4th respondent failed adhere to the procedure contemplated under Act 26 of 1971 and the rules framed thereunder while mutating the 5th respondent’s name. 7. Accordingly, the action of the 4th respondent in mutating the 5th respondent’s name over an extent of Ac.0.56 cents in Sy.No.108/1 of Kagithalagudem Village, Cumbum Mandal, Markapur Division, Prakasam District, is hereby set aside. 8. The 4th respondent is further directed to conduct afresh enquiry into the matter after affording an opportunity of being heard to both the parties and pass appropriate orders thereon. 9. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________ JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR Dt.18.03.2025 DSB 6 104 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR W.P.No.9496 OF 2021 Date: 18.03.2025 U DSB