1 APHC010250692025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] MONDAY ,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 12829/2025 Between: N. S. Hanumantha Reddy, ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P NARAHARI BABU 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: 12829/2025 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 questioning the action of the 4th respondent in rejecting the petitioner’s Mee-Seva application No.MUT250305034859 dated 05.03.2025 on 27.03.2025 for mutation of his name in revenue records by issuing Pattadar Pass Books, e-Pass Book and title deeds in respect of an extent of Ac.0.59 cents in Survey No.189-7 Situated at Thungodu Village, Somandapalli Mandal, Sri Sathya Sai District Erstwhile Anantapur District, without assigning any reasons as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 and consequently set aside the same by directing the respondents to mutate the petitioner’s name in the revenue records by issuing pattadar pass book, e-Pass Book and title deeds in favour petitioner in respect of above said land and pass such other order.” 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the 4th respondent without having any authority or Jurisdiction has rejected the petitioner’s application dated 05.03.2025 for mutation and for issuance of E-Pattadar Passbook and title deeds in respect of the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.0.59 cents in Survey No.189-7 Situated at Thungodu Village, Somandapalli Mandal, Sri Sathya Sai District Erstwhile Anantapur District. 3 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit contended that, the petitioner’s mutation application has been rejected by the Tahsildar on 27.03.2025, contrary to Section 5 of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act as amended by Act 15 of 2022 (for short ‘Act 15 of 2022), which says that if at all the Tahsildar has intention to reject application for mutation and issuance of pattadar pass book and title deed, at the most he can sent recommendations along with material to the Revenue Divisional Officer for necessary orders. He has drawn the attention of this Court to Section 5(2) of the Act 15 of 2022. But, the Tahsildar, instead of transmitting the documents to Revenue Divisional Officer along with recommendations, he himself had rejected the application contrary to the provisions of the Act 15 of 2022. As such, prayed to allow the Writ Petition by setting aside the same. 5. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents contended that the Section 5 of Act No.26 of 1971 was amended vide G.O.Ms.No.15 dated 02.04.2025, the same was published at Gazette as Act No.8 of 2025 on 02.04.2025, wherein Section 5(2) and 5(2)(a) were deleted by adding proviso as extracted hereunder: “2. In the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (herein after referred to as Principal Act), in Section 5- 4 (i) After sub-section (1), the following proviso shall be added namely- “Provided that no order refusing to make an amendment in accordance with the intimation shall be passed unless the person making such intimation has been given an opportunity of making his representation in that behalf.” (ii) For sub-section (2), the following shall be substituted, namely- “(2) The Tahsildar shall, before carrying out any amendment in the record of rights under sub- section (1) shall issue a notice in writing to all persons whose names are entered in the record of rights and who are interested in or affected by the amendment and to any other persons whom he has reason to believe to be interested therein or affected thereby to show cause within the period specified therein as to why the amendment should not be carried out. A copy of the amendment and the notice aforesaid shall also be published in such manner as may be prescribed. The Tahsildar shall consider every objection made in that behalf and after making such enquiry as may be prescribed pass such order in relation thereto as deemed fit, in accordance to this Act. Every order passed under this Section shall be communicated to the person concerned.” 5 6. Learned Government Pleader for the respondents further submits that in view of the above amendment vide Act No.8 of 2025, the Tahsildar has vested with the power and jurisdiction to deal with the mutation application made by the petitioner, either by ordering mutation or to reject the same. 7. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the 4th respondent has rejected the application of the petitioner without assigning any reasons and thereby, the petitioner is deprived of the opportunity of proceedings against the rejection order as he is unaware of the reasons for such refusal of the application. 8. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents and on perusal of amended Section 5(1) proviso of Act No.8 of 2025, it indicates that while rejecting the claim of the petitioner who sought for mutation under Section 6-A of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971, the 4th respondent/Tahsildar shall issue notice informing about the rejection of the same and invite the objections/explanation from the applicant. After receipt of the said objections/explanation, the 4th respondent shall consider the same and pass orders with all reasons. But in the instance case, the 4th respondent did not comply with the object of the amended Act i.e., Act No.8 of 2025. Therefore, the subject rejection without assigning any reasons and without providing 6 opportunity of hearing to the petitioner is contrary to Section 5(1) proviso of Act No.8 of 2025. 9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed, setting aside the rejection proceeding dated 27.03.2025. However, the claim of the petitioner was remitted for fresh consideration of the 4th respondent. The 4th respondent is at liberty to proceed further and pass appropriate orders in accordance with Section 5(1) proviso and Section 5(2) of Act No.8 of 2025. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel miscellaneous application, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 2233..0066..22002255 TTPPSS 7 83 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO:12829 of 2025 2233..0066..22002255 TTPPSS