APHC010152922022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 9540/2022 BETWEEN: RAYADI CHINA SUBBA RAO, THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 1. V V LAKSHMI NARAYANA COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT(S): 1. KAMBHAMPATI RAMESH BABU 2. GP FOR REVENUE 3. GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS (AP) The Court made the following: Impugning the action of the 4 respondent’s name in the revenue records of Ac.2.00 cents in Sy.No.319/B2B of Dharani Amaravathi Mandal, Narasaraopet Sub notice and without following th writ petition is filed. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THE THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 9540/2022 RAYADI CHINA SUBBA RAO, ...PETITIONER AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENT(S) COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: V V LAKSHMI NARAYANA COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT(S): KAMBHAMPATI RAMESH BABU REGISTRATION AND STAMPS (AP) The Court made the following: Impugning the action of the 4th respondent in mutating the 7 name in the revenue records for the agricultural land to an extent of Ac.2.00 cents in Sy.No.319/B2B of Dharani Kota Revenue Village, Amaravathi Mandal, Narasaraopet Sub District, Guntur District, without any without following the rules laid down under ROR Act, the present IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3332] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT(S) respondent in mutating the 7th for the agricultural land to an extent Kota Revenue Village, without any e rules laid down under ROR Act, the present 2. Heard Sri V.V.Lakshmi Narayana, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Krishna Praneeth, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and Sri Kambhampati Ramesh Babu, learned counsel for respondent No.7. 3. Sri V.V.Lakshmi Narayana, learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the contents of the affidavit, submitted that the subject land belongs to the petitioner and the revenue authorities also issued pattadar pass book and title deeds by mutating his name in the revenue records. The revenue authorities mutated the 7th respondent’s name in the revenue records without issuing notice to the petitioner on the ground that the decree has been passed in favour of the 7th respondent vide O.S.No.345 of 2002 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Sattenapalli. In fact questioning the said decree and judgment, the petitioner filed first appeal, which was dismissed and assailing the same, he filed second appeal and the same is pending adjudication before this Court and there is an order in favour of the petitioner. Knowing pretty well all these facts, the revenue authorities mutated unofficial respondent’s name. If the said mutation is allowed to subsist, the 7th respondent may create third party interest for which the petitioner would be adversely affected and also it may lead to multiplicity of litigation, accordingly prayed to pass appropriate orders protecting the interest of the petitioner. 4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader contended that by virtue of registered document placed before the authority, the Tahsildar has rightly mutated the 7th respondent’s name. If at all the petitioner has any grievance against such mutation, he has to approach the appellate authority but can’t ventilate his grievance before this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India. Accordingly prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 5. Sir Kambhampati Ramesh Babu, learned counsel for the respondent No.7, contended that the petitioner has entered into an agreement with the 7th respondent wherein a suit for Specific Performance vide O.S.No.345 of 2002 has been filed by the 7th respondent on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Sattenapalli. The trial court after full-fledged trial has decreed the suit in favour of the 7th respondent and pursuantly aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the petitioner got filed the first appeal vide A.S.No.14 of 2010. The said appeal was also dismissed. The Civil Court on execution petition filed by the 7th respondent, executed the sale deed in favour of the 7th respondent and after such execution of the sale deed, the 7th respondent filed an application for mutation of his name in the revenue records. By taking into consideration the said sale deed, the authority has rightly mutated the name of the 7th respondent. By the time the second appeal was filed by the petitioner, the sale deed was already executed and mutation took place. In the said circumstances, the petitioner cannot find any fault with the said mutation. If at all the petitioner succeeds in the second appeal he can take steps as per law but cannot ventilate his grievance before this Court under Article 226 of Constitution. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 6. Perused the record and considered the submissions. 7. It is not in dispute that the 7th respondent filed suit for specific performance in O.S.No.345 of 2002 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Sattenapalli, wherein the court below has passed a decree and judgment in favour of 7th respondent. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred first appeal vide A.S.No.14 of 2010 and the same also got dismissed. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has preferred a second appeal before this Court in S.A. No.1100 of 2010 wherein this Court has granted stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the decree passed by the trial Court. However, according to the 7th respondent, a sale deed has already been executed by the Court pursuant to the decree passed and pursuantly an application has been placed before the Tahsildar and taking into consideration the sale deed, the Tahsildar has mutated the 7th respondent’s name, before grant of interim orders in second appeal. The main grievance of the petitioner is that now by virtue of the said mutation, the 7th respondent may create some third party interest to the said property for which the petitioner’s right over the subject property would be adversely affected and the purpose of filing the second appeal would be defeated. There is some force in the said contention but however when the sale deed has been executed by the competent Court, the Tahsildar cannot ignore the said sale deed and refuse to mutate the 7th respondent’s name. To meet the ends of justice, this Court is inclined to pass the following order keeping in view the interest of both the parties. The Tahsildar- 4th respondent is directed to put the subject property in the dispute register pending disposal of the second appeal vide S.A.No.1100 of 2010. The petitioner is at liberty to take steps on the mutation of the 7th respondent’s name in accordance with law pursuant to outcome of second appeal. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 3rd January, 2025 TJN 205 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 9540/2022 Dated:03.01.2025 TJN HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH WRIT PETITION NO: 9540/2022 PROCEEDING SHEET Sl. No. Date ORDER OFFICE NOTE 12. 03.01.2025 RC, J The Writ Petition is disposed of. (Vide separate order) ______ RC, J TJN