APHC010144362025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI TUESDAY,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT APPEAL NO: 367 OF 2025 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the orders in W.P.No.1184 of 2022, dated 06-02-2025 on the file of the High Court. Between: 1. Malireddygari Hanumantha Reddy, S/o. Konda Reddy, Aged about 48 years Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Ammavarupalli, H/o. Munimadugu Village, Penukonda Mandal, Anantapuramu District. 2. Dubba Krishna Reddy,, S/o. Venkata Ramudu, Aged about 47 years, Occ Agriculture, R/o. Ammavarupalli, H/o. Munimadugu Village, Penukonda Mandal, Anantapuramu District. 3. Peddaramappagari Chinna Hanumantha Reddy, S/o. Venkata Ramudu Occ Agriculture, R/o. Penukonda Mandal, @ Donnappa, Aged about 56 years, Ammavarupalli, H/o. Munimadugu Village, Anantapuramu District. 4. Sudhakar Reddy, S/o. Hanumanth Reddy, Aged about 39 years, Occ Agriculture, R/o. Ammavarupalli, H/o. Munimadugu Village, Penukonda Mandal, Anantapuramu District. 5. Guddennagari Bayapa Reddy,, S/o. Govindappa, Aged about 47 years Occ Agriculture, R/o. Ammavarupalli, Penukonda Mandal, Anantapuramu District. H/o. Munimadugu Village ...Appellants/Respondents 5 to 9 in Writ Petition AND 1. Malireddygari Konda Reddy, S/o. Venkata Ramudu @ Sannapaiah Aged about 54 years, Occ Agriculture R/o. Ammavarupalli, H/o. Munimadugu Village. Penukonda Mandal, Anantapuramu District." 2. Malireddygari Venkat Reddy, S/o. Venkata Ramudu @ Sannapaiah Aged about 49 years, Occ Agriculture, R/o. Ammavarupalli, H/o. Munimadugu Village Penukonda Mandal, Anantapuramu District. 3. Malireddygari Srinivas Reddy, S/o. Venkata Ramudu @ Sannapaiah, Aged about 47 years, Occ Agriculture R/o. Ammavarupalli, H/o. Munimadugu Village, Penukonda Mandal, Anantapuramu District. ...Respondents/Writ Petitioners 4. State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary. Revenue Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi Guntur District. 5. The Joint Collector, Anantapuramu, Anantapuramu District. 6. The SubCollector and Subdivisional Magistrate, Penukonda, Anantapuramu District. 7. The Tahsildar, Penukonda Mandal, Anantapuramu District. ...Respondents/Respondents 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 suspend the order dated 06-02-2025 passed in W.P.No. 1184 of 2022, pendency of the Writ Appeal. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI S KRISHNA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3: SRI O MANOHER REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 4 to 7: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following order: APHC010144362025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3541] TUESDAY,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT APPEAL NO: 367/2025 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set aside the order of the Learned Single Judge passed in W.P.No.1184 of 2022, dated 06-02-2025 by confirming the proceedings of the 6th respondent in R.C.NO.2423/2018/B dated 04-01-2022 and allow the Writ Petition as prayed therein Between: 1.MALIREDDYGARI HANUMANTHA REDDY,, S/0. KONDA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O. AMMAVARUPALLI, H/0. MUNIMADUGU VILLAGE, PENUKONDA MANDAL, ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT. 2.DUBBA KRISHNA REDDY,, S/0. VENKATA RAMUDU, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O. AMMAVARUPALLI, H/0. MUNIMADUGU VILLAGE, PENUKONDA MANDAL, ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT. 3.PEDDARAMAPPAGARI CHINNA HANUMANTHA REDDY, S/0. VENKATA RAMUDU @ DONNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O. AMMAVARUPALLI, H/0. MUNIMADUGU VILLAGE, PENUKONDA MANDAL, ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT. 4.SUDHAKAR REDDY,, S/0. HANUMANTH REDDY, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O. AMMAVARUPALLI, H/0. MUNIMADUGU VILLAGE, PENUKONDA MANDAL, ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT. 2 ■W KRRJ. <i JSJ W.A^No.367 0/2025 5.GUDDENNAGARI BAYAPA REDDY,, S/0. GOVINDAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS AMMAVARUPALLI, PENUKONDA MANDAL, ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT. OCC AGRICULTURE, R/0. H/0. MUNIMADUGU VILLAGE, ...APPELLANT(S) AND 1.MALIREDDYGARI KONDA REDDY, S/0. VENKATA RAMUDU @ SANNAPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE MUNIMADUGU VILLAGE. ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT. R/0. AMMAVARUPALLI, H/0. PENUKONDA MANDAL, 2.MALIREDDYGARI VENKAT REDDY, S/0. VENKATA RAMUDU @ SANNAPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, MUNIMADUGU VILLAGE ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT. R/0. AMMAVARUPALLI, H/0. PENUKONDA MANDAL, 3.MALIREDDYGARI SRINIVAS REDDY, S/0. VENKATA RAMUDU @ SANNAPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, MUNIMADUGU VILLAGE, ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT. R/0. AMMAVARUPALLI, H/0. PENUKONDA MANDAL, 4.STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI GUNTUR DISTRICT. 5. THE JOINT COLLECTOR, ANANTAPURAMU, ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT. 6.THE SUBCOLLECTOR AND SUBDIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, PENUKONDA, ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT. 7.THE TAHSILDAR, PENUKONDA ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT. MANDAL ...RESPONDENT(S): lA NO: 1 OF 2025 3 RlilU. (K- JSJ H'\A.N(>.36~ 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 suspend the order dated 06-02- 2025 passed in W.P.No. 1184 of 2022, pendency of the Writ Appeal Counsel for the Appellant(S); 1.S KRISHNA REDDY r Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR REVENUE 2.0 MANOHER REDDY This Court made the following: 4 RRRJ. & JSJ W.A^NoMl of 2Q2i JUDGMENTi (PerHon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) Respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein had approached this Court by way of W.P.No.1184 of 2022 contending that the Sub-Collector, acting under Section 5 (5) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for short “the ROR Act”), had cancelled the pattadar passbooks and title deeds apart from the entries in the revenue record made in their favour, at the request of the appellants herein. The complaint of respondent Nos.1 to 3 was that the Sub-Collector did not have such jurisdiction or power under Section 5 (5) of the ROR Act, inasmuch as there was no order of mutation or cancellation of earlier entries or passbooks under Section 5 (3) of the ROR Act. A learned Single Judge of this Court, by an order dated 2. 06.02.2025, had accepted this contention and disposed of the writ petition by setting aside the order of the Sub-Collector vide RC.NO.2423/2018/B dated 04.01.2022. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants have moved the present appeal. 4. Sri S. Krishna Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, would contend that the land in question was the subject matter of O.S.No.33 of 2008, which had been filed for partition of the 5 RRIU. R- JSJ W.A No.367 III 2025 property before the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Penukonda. He f would submit that a preliminary decree was passed setting over the shares of the parties to the said suit which included the appellants and respondent Nos.1 to 3. He would further submit that the entries were made, at the behest of respondent Nos.1 to 3, contrary to the decision of the Senior Civil Judge, Penukonda, and the clearly impermissible. He would submit that in such circumstances, the order of the Sub-Collector was proper and correct and should not have been set aside by the learned Single Judge. same is 5. Heard Sri O. Manoher Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3. 6. A Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and for the State of Andhra Pradesh, in the case of Ratnamma Vs. the Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmavaram, Ananthapur District, had held that the scheme of the Act provided for an appeal under Section 5 (5) of the ROR Act only against the order passed under Section 5 (3) of the ROR Act. The Division Bench held that, in the absence of an order under Section 5 (3), there could be no appeal under Section 5(5) of the ROR Act. However, the Division Bench had also held that the 2015 see Online Hyd 282 6 RRR./. & JSJ IV.A.Nv.367of2()2S aggrieved party would still have a remedy of approaching the Joint Collector by way of a revision under Section 9 of the said Act. 7. The judgment of the learned Single Judge is in line with this view of the Division Bench. We are in respectful agreement with the said view of the Division Bench in Ratnamma case. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed, leaving it open to the appellants to approach the appropriate authority under Section 9 of the ROR Act for redressal of their grievance. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. Sd./- V.DIWAKAR DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// OFFICER S To, 1. One CC to Sri. S Krishna Reddy Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to Sri. O Manoher Reddy Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CCs to GP for Revenue High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 4. Two CD Copies GSC HIGH COURT DATED:29/07/2025 ORDER WA NO. 367 OF 2025 DISMISSING THE WA WITHOUT COSTS