APHC010123072025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3458] WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 6312/2025 Between: 1. SUGGU RAJULAMMA, W/O LATE SUGGU SUDARSHAN REDDY, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS R/O VOMARAVALLI VILLAGE, GARA MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, AT SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SRIKAKULAM, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, SRIKAKULAM, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT 4. THE TAHSILDAR, GARA MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT ...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 the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondents in not taking action on my representations dated 14.9.2023 and 1.7.2024 to mutate the name of the petitioner in the revenue records with reference to land in Sy No. 173/3 to the extent of Ac. 1.26 cents situated in Vomaravalli Village, Gara Mandal, Srikakulam District by rectifying the mistake in the revenue records 2 under A P Rights in Land and Pattedar Passbooks Act, 1971, as illegal arbitrary and violative of Arts. 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and to 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 to direct the Respondents to take action on the representations of the petitioner dated 14.9.2023 and 1.7.2024 for rectifying the mistake in the revenue records under A.P.Rights in Land and Pattedar Passbooks Act, 1971 and mutate the name of the petitioner in the revenue records with reference to the land in Sy No. 173/3 to the extent of Ac. 1.26 cents situated in Vomaravalli Village, Gara Mandal, Srikakulam District, in the interests of justice. 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 Respondent No.4 to file counter affidavit in the above writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M VIDYAVATHI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following Order: Heard Smt. M. Vidyavathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents. 2. The grievance of the petitioner in the instant Writ Petition is against the action of the respondents in not considering the representations of the petitioner, dated 14.09.2023 and 01.07.2024 seeking mutation of the petitioner’s name in the revenue records in respect of the subject land over an 3 extent of Ac.1.26 cents in Sy.No.173/3 of Vomaravalli Village, Gara Mandal, Srikakulam District. 3. It is contended that the petitioner’s husband has acquired the subject property through inheritance. After his demise, the petitioner has succeeded to the same. Thereafter, since, the petitioner is an elderly person, one Suggu Venkata Ramana Reddy alias Jeenu Babu, was put in possession of the land as tenant. The said tenancy had led to filing of a case against the Said Suggu Venkata Ramana Reddy for eviction. Thus filed A.T.C.No.8 of 2016 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Special Officer, Srikakulam and the same was decreed in favour of the petitioner. In pursuance of the said orders and the orders passed in E.P.No.119/2017 in A.T.C.No.8 of 2016, the petitioner has been in possession of the subject land. Despite the same, the said Suggu Venkata Ramana Reddy has been interfering with the petitioner’s possession over the subject property. Thus the petitioner filed O.S.No.508 of 2022 along with I.A.No.228 of 2022 on the file of the learned III Junior civil Judge, Srikakulam. In the said Suit, injunction was granted in favour of the petitioner. 4. Smt. M. Vidyavathi, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of the subject property. As her name has not been mutated in the revenue records after the death of her husband, she filed an application dated 14.09.2023 before the respondent No.4, requesting to mutate her name. Since, the same was not considered, the petitioner filed another representation, dated 01.07.2024. Pursuant to the 4 representations filed by the petitioner seeking mutation, enquiry was conducted and a detailed report was submitted to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Srikakulam, requesting to mutate her name by deleting the name of the said Suggu Venkata Ramana Reddy. 5. The 4th respondent - Tahsildar filed counter affidavit stating that the case of the petitioner was recommended by both the Mandal Revenue Officer and the Revenue Divisional Officer. However, the Joint Collector has placed the subject property in the dispute register on account of the Suit filed by Suggu Venkata Ramana Reddy alias Jeenu Babu in O.S.No.571 of 2023. The Joint Collector in view of the interim orders passed in the said suit I.A.No.800 of 2023 in O.S.No.571 of 2023 has placed the subject property in the dispute register as the said Suggu Venkata Ramana Reddy was proposing to sell the subject land. It is stated that the subject property had been placed in the dispute register, only to avoid further complications and litigations. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the said Suit in O.S.No.571 of 2023 was filed by Suggu Venkata Ramana Reddy for injunction, having regard to the orders in A.T.C.No.8 of 2016, the possession was delivered in favour of the petitioner. Thus, Suggu Venkata Ramana Reddy cannot claim possession over the subject property. 7. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue has placed before the Court, a copy of instructions received from the Tahsildar, dated 09.03.2026 in the case. A perusal of the same would reflect that Suggu 5 Venkataram Reddy has transferred the land in an extent of Ac.1.26 vide LPM No.785 of Vomaravalli Village in favour of Suggu Anirudh Reddy vide registered Gift Deed bearing Document No.18580/2024 dated 22.07.2024. Based on the report submitted by the Tahsildar, Gara, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Srikakulam, vide Rc.No.1181/2024/C, dated 26.09.2024, has recommended the Joint Collector, Srikakulam, to place the subject land in the dispute register to avoid any further legal complications. Accordingly, the Joint Collector, Srikakulam vide Proceedings L.Dis.No.1434/2024/D6, dated 10.10.2024, has ordered for placing the subject land in LPM No.785 (Corresponding Sy.No.173-3) in an extent of Ac.1.26 of Vormaravalli Village in Gara Mandal in the Dispute Register unit, further orders of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikakulam, to avoid unnecessary legal complications. 8. Considered the submissions. 9. The grievance of the petitioner is against the non-consideration of the representation filed by her for mutation. The petitioner has approached the authorities seeking mutation as long back as in 2023, followed by another application on 01.07.2024, without passing orders on the said application the respondent-revenue authorities have now placed the land under dispute register. The decision of the respondents to keep the subject property in dispute register is not supported by any provisions of law. In this context, it is 6 relevant to refer to a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Inakoti Prasada Rao vs. Pydi Srinu Srinivasarao1, wherein it was held that: “13. A perusal of the R.O.R Act and Rules reveals that there is no provision for setting up a dispute register in the said Act or the Rules. 14. …………………………….. 15. …………………………….. 16. …………………………….. 17. The common factor in all these guidelines, except where the recording authority, on account of disputes between the legal heirs of an existing pattadar, is unable to record the successor, is that, there has to be an express direction by the High Court/Civil Court/Appellate Authorities/Provisional Authorities to place such lands in the dispute register on account of pending litigation before them. In the present case, no such direction has been placed before this Court. In the absence of any such direction, an entry being made in the dispute register is clearly not permissible.” 10. Having regard to the contentions advanced, placing reliance on the Division Bench Judgment of this Court referred supra, I am of the view that the action of the respondents in placing the subject property in dispute register is without authority of law. Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition directing the Mandal Revenue Officer, Srikakulam District, to pass appropriate orders on the application filed by the petitioner, dated 14.09.2023 and 01.07.2024 for mutation in the revenue records without 1 W.A.Nos.943, 944, 945 of 2022 dated 25.09.2024 7 reference to the proceedings of the Joint Collector, Srikakulam in L.Dis.No.1434/2024/D6, dated 10.10.2024, placing the subject property under the dispute register. 11. It is needless to observe that, the petitioner is at liberty to file a fresh application seeking mutation in prescribed format. Upon filing of such an application, the Mandal Revenue Officer shall consider and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of six (06) weeks from the date of receipt of the order, after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and Suggu Venkata Ramana Reddy alias Jeenu Babu. 12. With the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed. ______________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA Dated: 06-05-2026 MSI 8 168 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 6312/2025 Dated: 06-05-2026 MSI