TCDS,J WP_8527_2021 1 APHC010150902021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3505] WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION No.8527/2021 Between: Galla Venkateswara Rao ...PETITIONER AND State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. VAJJHALA SATYANARAYANA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. NARASIMHA RAO GUDISEVA The Court made the following: TCDS,J WP_8527_2021 2 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR WP No.8527 of 2021 ORDER:- 1 It is the case of the petitioner that he purchased an extent of (i) Ac.3-68 cents in RS No.162 (ii) Ac.2-26 cents in RS No.163/1 (iii) Ac.1.51 cents in RS No.163/2 (iv) Ac.0-18 cents in RS No.168/1 (v) Ac.0-36 cents in RS No.169/1 and (vi) Ac.0-18 cents in RS No.169/6 (total extent Ac.8.17 cents) Kappaladoddi Village, Guduru Tq., Krishna District by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 13.08.1982, vide Document No.1907/1982, on the file of Sub-Registrar’s Office, Pedana. Since the date of purchase the petitioner claims that he was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property without any hindrance. 2. It is his further case that his name was also mutated in revenue records. That on 15.02.2016 when he approached respondent No.4 for obtaining copies of adangals in respect of the said lands, he noticed that the name of 5th respondent was mutated in revenue records by subsisting his name. Questioning the said action of the 4th respondent, the petitioner preferred an appeal before 3rd respondent seeking to set aside the mutation effected in the name of the 5th respondent. TCDS,J WP_8527_2021 3 3. The 3rd respondent after hearing, the petitioner and the 5th respondent passed order dated 20.05.2017 partly allowing the appeal filed by the petitioner by directing the Tahsildar to mutate his name in revenue records in respect of (i) Ac.0.94 cents in RS No.163/1 (ii) Ac.1.51 cents in RS No.163/2 (iii) Ac.0.18 cents in RS No.168/1 (iv) Ac.0.36 cents in RS No.169/1 and (v) Ac.0.18 cents in RS No.169/6 (total an extent of Ac.3.17 cents). 4. Though the appeal was filed in respect of Ac.8.17 cents, the 3rd respondent by order dt.20.05.2017 partly allowed the appeal filed by him to an extent of Ac.3.17 cents as aforesaid, the petitioner preferred revision petition before the 2nd respondent. Incidentally, the 5th respondent also filed revision petition questioning the very same order dated 20.05.2017. Both the revisions filed by the petitioner and the 5th respondent were heard and the 2nd respondent passed order dated 16.01.2021. It is the case of the petitioner that, the 2nd respondent having observed that the 3rd respondent rightly passed order by cancelling the entries standing in the name of 5th respondent over an extent of Ac.3.17 cents, nevertheless directed the said lands to keep in dispute register until competent Civil Court decides TCDS,J WP_8527_2021 4 total over the said lands, on the ground that the petitioner was not in possession and accordingly set aside the order dated 20.05.2017 passed by the 3rd respondent. Aggrieved by the order of the 3rd respondent the present writ petition is filed. 5. It is pertinent to mention that, in so far as revision petition filed by the 5th respondent is concerned, the same was dismissed, directing her to approach competent Civil Court. 6. It is the case of the petitioner that he has got title over an extent of Ac.8.17 cents in various survey numbers of Kappaladoddi Village, Gudur Tq., Krishna District having purchased the same by virtue of registered sale deed dated 13.08.1982 vide document No.1907 of 1982. It is his further case that he filed a suit in OS No.221 of 1986, on the file of III Additional Munsif Court, Machilipatnam over the land in dispute which ended in compromise by virtue of Judgment and Decree dated 18.07.1989. Under the said compromise decree, the petitioner was directed to give an extent of Ac.2.00 cents in favour of the 5th respondent as per agreement dated 20.05.1983. The petitioner was further directed to give an extent of Ac.3.00 cents to his wife Smt.T.Jayapradha, and he was allowed to retain TCDS,J WP_8527_2021 5 an extent of remaining Ac.3.17 cents out of the total an extent of Ac.8.17 cents. In other words, the 5th respondent is entitled to Ac.2.00 cents, the wife of the petitioner is entitled to Ac.3.00 cents and the petitioner was also allowed retain Ac.3.17 cents out of Ac.8.17 cents. 7. It is his further case that after demise of his wife Smt.T.Jayapradha, the 5th respondent claimed the extent which fell to the share of her mother and thereby she got mutated her name in respect of Ac.5.00 cents. It is further case of the petitioner that taking advantage of his absence in the village, the 5th respondent got mutated her name in respect of Ac.3.17 cents which exclusively belongs to the petitioner. It is further contended that no notice was issued to him before the name of 5th respondent is mutated in revenue records over the said extent. 8. On the other hand, the 5th respondent filed counter affidavit stating that the petitioner voluntarily issued willing letter to the revenue authorities saying that he has no objection to mutate her name in revenue records and based on the same, the revenue authorities incorporated her name. TCDS,J WP_8527_2021 6 9. It is further case of the 5th respondent that the mutation effected in her favour is also within the knowledge of the petitioner and despite the same he did not raise any objection at any point of time. She further claims that she is being possession of the property since 1985 and perfected her title by adverse possession. 10. The counsel for the petitioner relied on the Judgment reported in “Chinnam Pandurangam Vs.Mandal Revenue Officer and others”1 whereunder it was held as follows: “10.The issue deserves to be considered from another angle. If an application is made for amendment of the existing entries in the Record of Rights, the person whose name already exists in such record is entitled to contest the proposed amendment. He can do so only if a notice regarding the proposed amendment is given to him by the recording authority. An order passed against a person whose name already exists in the Record of Rights without giving him notice of the proposed amendment and effective opportunity of hearing is liable to be declared nullity on the ground of violation of the rule of audi alterm partem, which, as mentioned above, represents the most important facet of the rules of natural justice. It need no emphasis that the rules of natural justice are applicable in all judicial and quash-judicial proceedings. The rule of hearing is also applicable in purely administrative proceedings and actions where any public authority passes an order affecting the rights of any individual. The applicability of the rules of natural justice to purely administrative actions has been recognized by the Supreme Court in State of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei and has been reitereated in various judgments including those of A.K. Krapiak v. Union of India, Maneka Gandhi v.Union of India, S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Union of India and Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation. 1 2007 (6) ALT 134 (FB) TCDS,J WP_8527_2021 7 11. From the above discussion, it is clear that the requirement of issuing notice in writing to all persons whose names are entered in the Record of Rights and who are interested in or affected by the amendment is independent of the requirement of publication of notice in accordance with the second part of Section 5(3) read with Rule 19 and 5(2) of the Rules. The language of Form-VIII in which the notice is required to be published cannot control the interpretation of the substantive provision contained in Section 5(3), which, as mentioned above, casts a duty on the recording authority to issue notice in writing to all persons whose names are entered in the Record of Rights and who are interested in or affected by the proposed amendment.” 12. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and counsel for the respondent No.5. 13. Perused material available on record. 14. Admittedly the petitioner was absolute owner and possessor of land admeasuring an extent of Ac.8.17 cents. As can be seen from the compromise decree dated 18.07.1989 in OS No.221 of 1986, on the file of III Additional Munsif Court, Machilipatnam, it is clear that the petitioner retained an extent of Ac.3.17 cents out of total Ac.8.17 cents and the remaining extent of Ac.3.00 cents was given to petitioner wife and Ac.2.00 cents was given to 5th respondent respectively. Further they said compromise decree attained finality. In fact, the name of the petitioner was existing in revenue records, before the 5th TCDS,J WP_8527_2021 8 respondent’s name is mutated. Further on perusal of record, it is clear that, no notice was issued at the time of incorporating the name of 5th respondent and thereby, the respondents not only followed the procedure under RoR Act, but also violated the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the judgment relied upon by the petitioner is squarely applicable to the case on hand. 15. Therefore, the 3rd respondent rightly passed order dated 20.05.2017 by cancelling the entries made in favour of the 5th respondent by directing the 4th respondent to issue pattadar pass books and title deeds in favour of the petitioner over an extent of Ac.3.17 cents. 16. Though the petitioner filed revision petition claiming right over entire extent of Ac.8.17 cents he could not have claimed the same inasmuch as by virtue of compromise decree passed in OS No.221 of 1986, he is entitled to retain only Ac.3.17 cents. The 2nd respondent having held that the 3rd respondent rightly passed order dated 20.05.2017 cancelling the entries made in favour of 5th respondent, ought not to have directed the subject land to an extent of Ac.3.17 cents of Kappaladoddi TCDS,J WP_8527_2021 9 Village, Gudur Tq., Krishna District be placed in dispute register until competent Civil Court decides title over the subject lands. 17. It is needless to mention that there is no dispute pending between the parties in Civil Court. On the other hand the dispute between the parties was settled long ago in OS No.221 of 1986, on the file of III Additional Munsif Court, Machilipatnam by virtue of Judgment and Decree dt.18.07.1989. Therefore the order of the 2nd respondent directing the land admeasuring an extent of Ac.3.17 cents be placed in dispute register is not sustainable and the same is hereby set aside. 18. Though the petitioner filed revision petition for the entire extent of Ac.8.17 cents, he could not place any material to substantiate his right over the same except to an extent of Ac.3.17 cents, the land in (i) Ac.0.94 cents in RS No.163/1 (ii) Ac.1.51 cents in RS No.163/2 (iii) Ac.0.18 cents in RS No.168/1 (iv) Ac.0.36 cents in RS No.169/1 and (v) Ac.0.18 cents in RS No.169/6, situated in Kappaladoddi Village, Guduru Tq., Krishna District. TCDS,J WP_8527_2021 10 19. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is partly allowed and the order of 3rd respondent is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. As sequal miscellaneous petitions, if any shall stand closed. ______________________ JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR 26.03.2025 DR TCDS,J WP_8527_2021 11 1 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR WP No.8527 of 2021 Date 26.03.2025 DR