Jj ii APHC010212442022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) V ."j: TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH 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: 882 OF 2025 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters against the order in WP.No. 32880 of 2018, dated 18-02-2022 on the file of the High Court. Between: 1. P.Murali Mohan Reddy, S/o Subba Rami Reddy, Aged about 53 business, resident of Flat No.401, Door No.7-119/4, Temple view Residency, Padmavathipuram, Tirupathi Rural Mandal, Chittor District 2. Mandali Giridhar, S/o M. Venkateswara Rao, Aged about 59 business, resident of Ravindranagar Colony, Habsiguda, Hyderabad-7. ...Appellants/Respondent No. 5 and 6 in WP No. 32880/2018 years. years. Door No.8-4/3,Plot No.70, Street No.8 AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rept., by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. The District Collector, Chittoor, Chittoor District. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Madanapalli Revenue Madanapalli, Chittoor District. Division, 4. The Tahsildar, Chinnagottigailu Mandal, Chittoor District, Chittoor 5. M Malleswara Chand, S/o/Late M.Venkata Narasimhulu, 75 years, R/o.101,HS. Aged about 18-8-43/E, CPR Hill Ridge, Apartment, TirumalaBy Pass Road, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. ...Respondents/Respondents/Petitioner in WP No. 32550/2018 lA NO: 1 OF 2094 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit flied in support of the petition, the High Court may be pieased to permit the petitioners appellants to reconstruct the file and resubmit the appeal WA Sr 17191 of 2022 filed on 27-04-2022 and receive the same in the interest of justice lA NO: 2 OF Pn?*; Petition under Section 151 CPC in the affidavit fiied in support of the petition, the High Court may be pieased to suspend the order dated 18-02-2022 passed in WP.No. 32880/2018 by tbe Learned Single Judge of this Hon’ble Court praying that in the circumstances stated pending disposal of the writ appeal in the interests of justice. lA NO: 3 OF 2n9fi Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fiied in support of the petition, the High Court may be pieased to direct the respondents 2 to 4 to mutate and incorporate the names of the petitioners in the revenue records and village accounts in respect of their prosperities iand admeasuring an Ext Ac 2-42 acts in Sy No. 2226 and Ac4-62 cts in Sy No 2227 and alos an extent of Act. 9-43 cts of fry lands in Sy no. 217 situated in Cbittecheria viiiage, Chinnagattigaiiu Mandal of Chittoor District based on the title and possession of the petitioners by following the due process of law in the interests of justice ‘ «SP Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI P A SESHU Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No. 5: SRI G VENKATA REDDY The Court made the following order: fir APHC010212442022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MM [3541] TUESDAY. THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT APPEAL (SR) NO: 1719112022^ . ; V. ■- - Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent Between: 1. P MURALI MOHAN REDDY, - ...APPELLANT AND 1. THE SATE OFAP,- ...RESPONDENT lA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 • Pleased to permit the petitioners appellants to reconstruct the file and resubmit the appeal WA Sr 17191 of 2022 filed on 27-04-2022 and receive the same in the interest of justice Counsel for the Appellant: 1.P ASESHU Counsel for the Respondent: 1. 2.GP FOR REVENUE 3.G VENKATA REDDY RRR,J & JS,J W.A.(SR).No.l7191 of 2022 The Court made the following Judgment: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) The appellants herein, claim that, they had purchased Ac.2.42 cents of land in Sy.No.2226, Ac.4.62 cents of land in Sy.No.2227 & Ac.9.43 cents of land in Sy.No.2179, in Chittecherla Village, Chinnagattigallu Mandal of Chittoor District. After such purchase, the appellants are said to have approached the Revenue Authorities for mutation. As the said mutation was not being considered by the Revenue Authorities, the 2 approached this Court, by way of W.P.No.10450 of 2017 for a direction to the Revenue Authorities to mutate the revenue records in favour of the 2 appellant. In this Writ Petition, the Tahsildar of the Mandal, filed a counter-affidavit, in March, 2017, stating that, there was a sale transaction between the vendor of the appellants and the appellants whereby the land is said to have been transferred under a registered document. However, the 1®' appellant had not been put in possession by the vendor. The Tahsildar, further stated that the mutation of the appellants could not be processed as the 2 appellant was not in possession of the land and there is a serious dispute of title between the vendor and the appellants. nd appellant nd nd Thereafter, the Tahsildar, initiated proceedings and deleted the name of the vendor of the appellants from the revenue records and inserted the names of the appellants in the revenue records, in relation to the aforesaid land. 2. Aggrieved by this action of the Tahsildar, the vendor of the appellants, had approached this Court, by way of W.P.No.32880 of 2018. On 12.09.2018, 3. RRR,J & JS,J W.A.(SR}.No.l7191 of 2022 a learned Single Judge of the erstwhile High Court at Hyderabad for the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, after considering the averments in the affidavit filed in the Writ Petition bearing No. 10450 of 2017, had held that, the Tahsildar having refused to mutate the revenue records on account of the lack of possession of the appellants could not have immediately carried out mutation in the revenue records and issued pattadar passbooks. The learned Single Judge, also noted that, there were serious disputes between the vendor of the appellants and the appellants regarding the title over the subject land. On this basis, the learned Single Judge, directed the Tahsildar to reverse the entries as prayed for in the interim prayer in the Writ Petition. It may also be noted that the learned Single Judge, had specifically noted that, no notice was given to the vendor of the appellants before the change in the revenue records. Subsequently, the learned counsel appearing for the vendor of the appellants in W.P.No.32880 of 2018, had submitted before a learned Single Judge of this Court, that no further orders would be required as the interim direction of the learned Single Judge, granted earlier, had worked itself out. The learned Single Judge, accepting this contention, had disposed of the Writ Petition, by making interim order absolute, by an order, dated 18.02.2022. 4. 5. The appellants, who were arrayed as respondents 5 & 6, in the Writ Petition bearing No.32880 of 2018 and who had been represented by the learned counsel filed the present Writ Appeal being aggrieved by the Orders RRR,J & JS,J W.A.(SR).No.17191 of 2022 of the learned Single Judge, dated 18.02.2022. The Writ Appeal bundle is said to have been misplaced on account of which permission was sought for reconstructing the bundle. After such permission had been given by this Court, the bundle has been reconstructed and placed before this Court. It may also be noted that, in this process, there was a delay of about 500 days, which has also been condoned, by way of a separate Order. 6* Sri P. A. Seshu, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, would the claim of the appellants could not have been denied in as 6. contend that, much as they have acquired all the title of their vendor by way of a registered sale deed. He submits that, in such circumstances, it would have been appropriate for a direction to be given for verification of these facts rather than deletion of the names of the appellants from the revenue records without any further enquiry. Sri G. Venkata Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the vendor of the appellants, would submit that, in the absence of notice before the passing of the impugned order mutating the revenue records in favour of the appellants, the same would have to be set aside, on grounds of violation of Principles of Natural Justice. 7. Sri P. A. Seshu, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, would draw the attention of this Court to the counter-affidavit filed by the Tahsildar, in W.P.No.32880 of 2018, wherein the Tahsildar, had certified that the appellants 8. RRRJ & JS,J ‘t W.A.(SR).No.l7191 of 2022 possession of the land and that, such a finding had been given only after a discrete enquiry had been conducted by the Tahsildar. are in 9. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Tahsildar, in W.P.No.32880 of 2018, there is no statement that Rule 16 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Rules, 1989, which requires the appropriate Authority to issue notice to all persons whose names were entered in the Record of Rights as having interested in the land before any change of entries in the record be made, had been complied. Further, it appears that the requirements of Rule 18 of issuance of Form — can 8 as per Rule 19 had also not been complied as the counter-affidavit of the Tahsildar is silent on these issues. 10. In these circumstances, even if a fresh view of the entire controversy i; to be taken, the change of entries by deleting the name of the vendor of the appellants and including the names of the appellants in the revenue records had been done in violation of the procedure contemplated under the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Rules, 1989. IS 11. However, the fact remains that the appellants have a registered document in which the land is said to have been transferred to them by their vendor. Sri G. Venkata Reddy, the learned counsel for the vendor, would contend that, the said transfer itself is disputed and Suits have also been filed between the parties, in relation to the deed of sale, wherein the relief sought includes cancellation of the said deed and reconveyance of the property. 6 RRR,J & JS,J W.A.(SR).No.l7191 of 2022 Sri P. A. Seshu, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, disputed these facts and further contends that the said Suit has been closed. We do not propose to go into these disputes except to observe that there are serious questions of fact, which are have to be gone into before any decision can be taken, in relation to the mutation of the revenue records. 12. circumstances, this Writ Appeal is disposed of, without Order of the learned Single Judge, leaving it open to the submit fresh applications for mutation of the revenue records such mutation shall be only after notice and appropriate opportunity 13. In these disturbing the appellants to and any of hearing is given to the vendor of the appellants. It would also be open to the appropriate Authority before whom such an application is made to either pass order or await a decision from an appropriate Court of Civil jurisdiction on an the disputes between the parties. There shall be no order as to costs. shall stand sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any As a Sd/- V.DIWAKAR DEPUTY REGISTRAR closed. //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, State of Andhra Amaravathi, Guntur Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi District. 2. The District Collector, Chittoor Chittoor District. Divisional Officer, Madanapalli Revenue Division, 3. The Revenue Madanapalli, Chittoor District.. 4. The Tahsildar, Chinnagottigallu Mandal, Chittoor District, Chittoor 5. One CC to Sri. P A Seshu Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to Sri. G Venkata Reddy Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 8. Two CD Copies GSC HIGH COURT DATED:15/07/2025 ORDER WA NO. 882 OF 2025 g 13 AUG 2025 C9, ^ . Current Section . ^ DISPOSING THE WA WITHOUT COSTS