APHC010161222025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] MONDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 8499/2025 Between: Gadi Narayana Reddy, ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. Y MAHA LAKSHMI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: 2 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 8499/2025 ORDER: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India seeking the following reliefs:- “to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Endorsement in RC.B.508/2024, dated 03.03.2025 issued by the 4th respondent wherein rejecting the application of the petitioner for mutation and issue of Pattadar pass books to the land in Sy.No.59-7 to an extent of Ac.0.80 cents, Sy.No.59-10 to an extent of Ac.0.92 cents, Sy.No.63-1 to an extent of Ac.0.39 cents, Sy.No.63-5 to an extent of Ac.0.03 cents, Sy.No.63-6 to an extent of Ac.0.79 cents, Sy.No.63-7 to an extent of Ac.0.69 cents, Sy.No.68-4 to an extent of Ac.1.05 cents, Sy.No.97-2 to an extent of Ac.0.76 cents, Sy.No.99-1 to an extent of Ac.0.79 cents, Sy.No.99-2 to an extent of Ac.2.38 cents, Sy.No.99-8 to an extent of Ac.0.02 cents, Sy.No.100-2 to an extent of Ac.0.36 cents, Sy.No.100-5 to an extent of Ac.0.10 cents, Sy.No.177-1-3 to an extent of Ac.0.35 cents, Sy.No.177-14B to an extent of Ac.0.04 cents, Sy.No.15-2 to an extent of Ac.0.82 cents, Sy.No.174-7C to an extent of Ac.0.14 cents, Sy.No.175-13A to an extent of Ac.0.05 cents total Ac.10.43 cents of Manga Nellore Village, Sullurpet Mandal, Tirupati District and set aside the same as illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the 4t respondent to reconsider the application of the petitioner dated 19.12.2024 and issue pattadar pass books and title deeds for the petition schedule lands and pass such other order.” 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the absolute owner of the land admeasuring to an extent 3 of Ac.0.80 cents in Sy.No.59-7, Ac.0.92 cents in Sy.No.59-10, Ac.0.39 cents in Sy.No.63-1, Ac.0.03 cents in Sy.No.63-5, Ac.0.79 cents in Sy.No.63-6, Ac.0.69 cents in Sy.No.63-7, Ac.1.05 cents in Sy.No.68-4, Ac.0.76 cents in Sy.No.97-2, Ac.0.79 cents in Sy.No.99- 1, Ac.2.38 cents in Sy.No.99-2, Ac.0.02 cents in Sy.No.99-8, Ac.0.36 cents in Sy.No.100-2, Ac.0.10 cents in Sy.No.100-5, Ac.0.35 cents in Sy.No.177-1-3, Ac.0.04 cents in Sy.No.177-14B, Ac.0.82 cents in Sy.No.15-2, Ac.0.14 cents in Sy.No.174-7C, Ac.0.05 cents in Sy.No.175-13A of total Ac.10.43 of Manga Nellore Village, Sullurpet Mandal, Tirupati District, having purchased the same through a registered sale deed dated 21.07.2011. While so, the validity of the sale deed was questioned by way of instituting O.S.No.80 of 2014 on the file of the VII Additional District Judge, Gudur by the legal heirs of defendant No.1 therein, wherein the Court below dismissed the said suit by upholding that the sale deed executed by defendant No.1 in favor of the petitioner herein is a valid and enforceable deed, is such that, the petitioner had acquired the property in accordance with law and in compliance of the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act. In view of the interference of the legal heirs of the petitioner’s vendor/defendant No.1, the petitioner also instituted a suit i.e., O.S.No.43 of 2016 seeking for permanent injunction, wherein the Court below after having detailed enquiry, decreed the said suit by granting permanent injunction in favour of the petitioner against the 4 official respondents herein vide judgment dated 08.04.2024. At last, even though the rights of the petitioner over the subject properties were confirmed/declared by the Court below in all respects but the application for mutation of the petitioner’s name in the revenue records was rejected by the 4th respondent vide an endorsement dated 03.03.2025 is arbitrary, illegal and is liable to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents categorically stated that as per Section 5(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (ACT No. 26 of 1971) any rejection of mutation once sought by the petitioner pursuant to the acquisition of sale deed or decree, the 4th respondent did not confer any right or jurisdiction for such rejection. It is clear that as per Section 5(2) of the Act, the rejection of the claim of the applicant is vested with the 3rd respondent. Therefore, the endorsement issued by the 4th respondent dated 03.03.2025 is contrary to Section 5(2) of the Act, 1971. 5. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents and on perusal of the material placed on record, it is clear and categorical that the petitioner acquired the title and possession over the subject properties through a valid registered sale deed, the same was declared and confirmed by way of judgments and decrees passed by the court Below. Hence, the 5 endorsement/rejection order passed by the 4th respondent is contrary to Section 5(2) of the Act, 1971. It is further clarified that any rejection of the mutation sought by the title holder should be vested with the 3rd respondent herein. 6. Therefore, in view of the reasons stated above, the endorsement/impugned order dated 03.03.2025 issued by the 4th respondent is hereby set aside. Further Respondent No.4 is directed to forward the same to the 3rd respondent. Thereafter, on receipt of the same, Respondent No.3 is directed to consider the application of the petitioner in accordance with law, within a reasonable time, i.e. within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 7. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel miscellaneous application, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 07.04.2025 TTPPSS 6 139 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO:8499 of 2025 07.04.2025 TTPPSS