Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 1801 (AP)

PADALA RAMBABU v. THE STATE OF AP

WP/273/2025 · 2026-05-07

Kiranmayee Mandava

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010003182025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3458] FRIDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 273/2025 Between: 1. PADALA RAMBABU, S/O. P. LEVA RAJU, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS R/O. SAI NAGAR, CHINTAPALLI POST, VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH -531 111. 2. PALAPARTHI MAHIDHAR, , S/O. P. APPANNA DORA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS R/O. PLOT NO. F, SRI SIDDI VINAYAKA NAGAR, PHOOL BAUGH ROAD, VIZIANAGARAM, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-535002. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT, VIZIANAGARAM. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, VIZIANAGARAM, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, VIZIANAGARAM MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. 5. THE SUB REGISTRAR, VIZIANAGARAM MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. 2 ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in nature of Writ of Mandamus challenging the proceedings in Ref.No.2586/A/dated 07.11.2022 issued by the respondent No.4 in rejecting our request for mutation of names for the lands in an extent of Ac.0.682/3 Cents in Sy.No.148/2, Ac.1.53 cents in Sy.No.148/12, Ac.0.94 cents in Sy.No.117/8 situated in K.L Puram Village, Vizianagaram Mandal, Vizianagaram District in our favor on the sole ground that it is updated in the revenue records as a Layout without any basis as illegal and arbitrary, contrary to the provisions of the A.P.Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 and Rules 1989 apart from being violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed to us under constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to mutate the revenue records for the land in an extent of Ac.0.682/3 Cents in Sy.No.148/2, Ac.1.63 cents in Sy.No.148/12, Ac.0.94 cents in Sy.No.117/8 situated in K.L Puram Village, Vizianagaram Mandal in our favor and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 IA NO: 2 OF 2025 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 may be pleased to grant leave to the Petitioner herein/ Respondent No.5 in the Writ Petition No. 273 of 2025 to file counter affidavit in the above Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. GAJJALA MALLIKARJUNA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS 3 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 273/2025 The Court made the following Order: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents. 2. The challenge in the instant Writ Petition is to the proceedings of the 4th respondent - Tahsildar, dated 07.11.2022, in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for mutation and issuance of pattadar passbooks. The reason for rejection of the said application is that the subject land is recorded as ‘lay out’ in the web land and the same has been used for non agricultural purposes. 3. The contention of the petitioners is that the petitioner’s father has purchased the subject property for a valuable consideration in 2012. During his lifetime, he did not take any measures for effecting mutation of his name in the revenue records. After his lifetime, the petitioner has filed an application having succeeded the subject property seeking mutation in 2015. However, no orders were communicated to the petitioner. Thus petitioner filed an application under RTI seeking information about the application filed. Vide the proceedings issued under RTI Act, the petitioner was informed of the rejection. However no proceedings were issued communicating the order of rejection. Thus the petitioner had filed another application in 2019 stating that the land was purchased as an agricultural land in 2012 and the stamp duty at the rate applicable to the agricultural lands was paid while the sale deed was registered in their favour. It is contended that the petitioner’s father had 4 purchased the subject land and the same has been used for agricultural purposes all along. However, the respondents have rejected the petitioner’s request for mutation citing that a layout has been formed over the subject land, which is without issuing any notice to the petitioner. Thus prays for set aside of the impugned proceedings. 4. Having regard to the contentions advanced and from the impugned proceedings it appears that while rejecting the application of the petitioner, the petitioner was not put on notice. Having regard to the same, this Court is of the view that when the respondent authority has opined that the request of the petitioner is not maintainable, it is incumbent upon the authority to issue prior notice before rejecting the application of the petitioner. Thus the impugned proceedings, dated 07.11.2022 are set required to be aside, since the same is issued without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. 5. Having regard to the same, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition by setting aside the impugned proceedings, dated 07.11.2022 and remand the matter to the Tahsildar for passing appropriate orders in accordance with law, after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, within a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of the order. 6. With the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 5 As a sequel, all pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed. ______________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA Dated: 08-05-2026 MSI 6 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 273/2025 Dated: 08-05-2026 MSI