IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: / FRIDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO W AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI WRIT APPEAL NO: 601 OF 2025 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 6.2.2025 in W.P.No.20653 of 2021 on the file of the High Court. Between: 1. Abbaraju Surya Prakash Rao, S/o Gopal Rao, aged about 70 years, R/o Ongole Town and Mandal, Prakasam District. 2. Abbaraju Venugopal, S/o Surya Prakash Rao, aged about 47 years R/o Ongole Town and Mandal, Prakasam District. ...APPELLANTS/ RESPONDENT Nos.6 & 7 AND 1. Ongole Sesha Venkata Krishna Kumari, W/o late Ongole Venkata Krishna Manikyal Rao, aged about 72 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o Flat No.203, Sri Giri Towers, Court Center, Ongole, Prakasam District. ...RESPONDENT/ WRIT PETITIONER 2. State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole, Prakasam District. 4. The Tahsildar, Ongole Mandal, Prakasam District, A.P. 5. Ongole Sujatha, W/o Lakshmi Narasimha Rambaby, R/o D.No.8-2-15, Kothapeta, 2'"'^ line Ongole Town, Prakasam District. 6. Ongole Jayasri, W/o Pemmaraju Satyanarayanamurthy, R/o D.No.8-2- 16, Kothapeta, 2nd line, Ongole Town, Prakasam District. 7. The Joint Collector, Ongole, Prakasam District. ...RESPONDENTS '• lA NO: 2 OF 7C)9R Petition under Section 151 CPC stated in the affidavit filed i praying that in the circumstances in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings pursuant to the notice bearing RC.D2/329/2025 dated 9.4.2025 issued by the 7th respondent-Joint Collector & Additional District Magistrate, Prakasam District, Ongole pending disposal of the writ appeal. lA NO: 3 OF 207.4 Petition under Section 151 CPC stated in the affidavit filed i praying that in the circumstances in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the order dated 6.2.2025 passed in W.P.No.20653 of 2021, pending disposal of the writ appeal. Counsel for the Appellants: SRI KOCHIRI RAJA SHEKAR Counsel for the Respondent No.1 :SRI V. SAI KUMAR GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 & 7: Counsel for the Respondent Nos.5 & 6; SRI B. ANJANEYULU The Court made the following: JUDGMENT %■ ♦APHG0I0214952025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AiMARAVAIl (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3535] liilM FRIDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L JM CHAKRAVARTHI WRIT APPEAL NO: 601/2025 Between: Abbaraju Surya Prakash Rao and Others ..,APPELLANT(S) AND Ongole Sesha Venkata Krishna Kumari and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appelliant(S): I.KOCHiRI F^AJASHEK/^R Counsel for the Respondenl;(S): 1.GP FOR REVENUE 2.E5VANJANEYULU 3. V SAI KUMAR The Court made the following Judgimient: (per Hon’ble Sri justice R. Raghunandan Rao) The 1®^ respondent herein, claiming rights over of Ac.2.90 cents of land, in Sy.No.138/3 and Ac.6.30 cents of land, in Sy.No.2G7 of Ongole Village and Mandal, Prakasam District, had approached the Tahsildar, Ongole, for mutation of the revenue records in her favour. The Tahsildar, Ongole, by an Order dated 16.02.2021, had issued orders of mutation for the part of the said land. The Tahsildar took the view that extent of Ac.3.18 cents, in Sy.No.267, were covered with thick japan trees and the land was not 2 cultivable due to which the pattadar pass books and title deeds cannot be respondent was entitle to the said land, in St issued even though, the 1 Sy.No.267. Thereafter, the mutation was carried out, in favour of the appellants herein, and the names of the appellants were shown, in the revenue records, in relation to Ac.6.30 cents, in Sy.No.267. Aggrieved by the said inclusion of the names of the appeliants, the respondent approached this Court by way of the Writ Pe^tition No.20653 of 2021. 2. The case of the T'^ respondent was that the Tahsildar, having rejecting her application for mutation, on the ground that the land was not agricultural land could not have carried out mutation, in favour of the appellants herein. 3. In the course of the; hearing btjfore the Learned Single Judge of this Court, the Learned Government Pleader for Revenue had filed a report of the Collector, stating that the mutation proceedings under which the names of the appellants were included was missing from the office. 4. The appellants herein, claimied an independent right over the land and contended that the non-service of notice to the 1®' respondent and the mutation of the revenue records, in favour of the appellants cannot be faulted as they are done strictly in accordance with law. 5. The Learned Single Judge after considering the rival submissions held that there were disputes of fact which cannot be decided by the Court and that it would be cippropriate that these disputes are sent back, to the revenue authorities, for a decision. 6. Learned Single Judge, had thereupon disposed of the \Afrit Petition, by an Order dated 06.02.2025, by impleading the Joint-Collector, Ongole, as the 8*'' respondent with a further direction to the Joint-Collector, Ongole, to call for the records cind examine the entire issue and to ascertain 7. 3 % ' whether there w'as any irregularity in the decision taken by the Tahsildar while mutating the names of the appellants herein, in the revenue records. The Joint-Collector, Ongole, was also directed to take into consideration the report, dated 03.02.2025, submitted by the Collector. 8. Aggrieved by the Order of the Learned Single Judge, the appellants have approached this Court by way of the present Writ Appeal. 9. Sri Kochiri Raja Shekar, learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the Learned Single Judge, having held that there are disputed 10. questions of fact, should have left it open to the respondent to take such respondent may deem fit. He vi/ould contend the Learned steps as the 1 Single Judge ought not to have directed an enquiny to be conducted under the revisionat jurisdiction of the Joint-Collector, under Section-9 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books y^ct, 1971 [for short “the Act, 1971”]. He would also contend that the appellants herein lose a valuable right of revision in as much as the appropriate course of action would have been to file an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, under Section-5(5) of the Act, 1971 and thereafter a further opportunity of revision would be available to the affected parities. This contention has been stated only for the purposes of rejecting the said contention. The report of the Collector is that the order of mutation is not available in the record. 11. In such circumstances, an appeal cannot be filed, under Section 5(5) of the Act, 1971 as the impugned order of mutation would be neoessary for filing suoh an appeal and the authorities are not in a position to furnish a copy of the same to the 1®* respondent. Learned oounsel for the appellants also contends that a revision at thi!5__stage is not permissible as it is more than four years since the application of the 1®‘ respondent was rejected, on 16.02.2021. This objection 12. 13. 4 Writ Petition was filed in year-2021 cannot be taken to be a reason for to ha\re merit. The also does not appear and the pendency of the Writ Petition delay. merit in this W'rit Appeal issed. There shall be no order as to For all the aforesaid reasons, there is no and accordingly, this Writ Appeal is dismi;: costs. 14. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any shall stand SDI- K. TATA RAO deputy^REGISTRAR omcER closed. //true copy// / SECtT To, ia Shekar, Advocate [OPUC] 1 One CC to Sri Kochiri Raja . 2. One CC to Sri V. Sai Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri B. Anjaneyulu, AdvocatelOPUC] „uTl 4. Two CCS to GP for Revenue, High Court of A.P. at mara 5. Three CD Copies. ssb HIGH COURT DATED;09/05/2025 JUDGMENT WA.No.601 of 2025 o 10 JUN CS ★ DISMISSING THE W.A. WITHOUT COSTS