APHC010154102025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] TUESDAY ,THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 8031/2025 Between: Chakali Lakshmanna, and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. BOPPUDI ALEKHYA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO:8031/2025 ORDER: The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following relief: “to issue an order, direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of the Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in passing the order vide Rc.E.619/2022 dated 04.10.2022 as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently to set aside the order vide Rc.E.619/2022 dated 04.10.2022 passed by the 3rd respondent and to pass such other order or orders….” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners herein are the absolute owners and possessors of the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.6.26 cents in Sy.No.228/C of Budur Village, Mantralayam Mandal, Kurnool District having acquired the same by way of inheritance. Later in the year 2021, the petitioners herein registered a partition deed dated 04.05.2021 dividing the subject land into equal shares to all the petitioners herein. Accordingly, the petitioners herein approached respondent No.4 seeking to mutate their names in the revenue records pursuant to the partition of the subject land. But to the surprise of the petitioners, names of respondent Nos. 5 and 6 have been mutated in the revenue records and pattadar pass books and title deeds were also issued in their favour. On 02.06.2021, the petitioners herein made an application to respondent No.4 requesting to issue pattadar pass books and title deeds in their favour by cancelling the pattadar pass books and title deeds issued in favour of respondent Nos. 5 and 6. For which, respondent No.4 issued an endorsement dated 09.07.2021 stating to provide all the required documents to prove their title in respect of the subject land. As such, the petitioners herein submitted all the required documents to respondent No.4. But respondent No.4 issued an endorsement dated 21.01.2022 rejecting ROR application made for mutation of the names of the petitioners in the revenue records. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners herein instituted a suit for permanent injunction against respondent Nos. 5 and 6 in O.S.No.89 of 2024 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Yemmiganur, which is still pending adjudication. 4. Aggrieved by the orders of respondent No.4, the petitioners herein preferred an Appeal before the respondent No.3. After hearing both the parties, respondent No.3 passed the impugned order dated 04.10.2022 dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioners herein. Aggrieved by the said impugned order, the petitioner herein filed the present writ petition. 5. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that since the order dated 04.10.2022 impugned in the present writ petition is passed by respondent No.3/ Revenue Divisional Officer, a Revision lies before the Joint Collector. Without availing the same, the petitioners herein filed the present writ petition. He further submits that the order impugned in the present writ petition is amenable to statutory revision before the Joint Collector. As such, the petitioner can invoke alternative remedy by way of filing a revision before the 2nd respondent. In view of the same, learned Government Pleader for the respondents further submits that let there be a direction to the petitioners to file a revision before the 2nd respondent challenging the orders dated 04.10.2022 passed by the 3rd respondent. On filing of such revision, respondent No.2 would consider the same and pass appropriate orders within a reasonable time. 6. Having regard to the submissions made by the both the learned counsel, on perusal of the material placed on record, this Court is of the considered view that the present writ petition can be disposed of, directing the petitioners herein to file a revision before the 2nd respondent within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. After filing of the same, 2nd respondent is directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders, after providing opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned, within a period of six months, thereafter. In the meanwhile, Status quo obtaining as on today shall be maintained by all the parties concerned in respect of the subject property. 7. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition shall stand closed. _______________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 28.03.2025 BSP 218 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION No.8031 of 2025 28.03.2025 BSP