APHC010292632020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3458] MONDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 19324/2020 Between: Sripadam Venkateswarulu, and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. T V JAGGI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER:- Heard Sri T.V.Jaggi Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. 2. Challenging the proceedings of the 4th respondent, mutating the name of the 5th respondent in respect of the subject land in an extent of Ac.1.62 cents in Sy.No.33/1 of Gorripudi Village, Karapa Mandal, East Godavari District, without issuing notice to the petitioners, the present writ petition is filed. 3. It is contended that one Sripadam Bulleyya, grandfather of the 2nd petitioner was the absolute owner of the subject property. During his life 2 time, he was in enjoyment and possession of the property and the name of Sripadam Bulleyya was mutated as owner and possessor, in all revenue records viz., ROR-IB, Adangals including the settlement register. After the death of the said Sripadam Bulleyya, the petitoners being the legal heirs of Sripadam Bulleyya succeeded to the property. The revenue records reflects the name of Sripadam Bulleyya as owner and possessor of the above said landed property. It is contended that without issuing any notice or intimation to the petitioners, in the revenue records the name of Sripadam Apparao, the 5th respondent, was mutated who has no right, title or possession over the subject property. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners, in support of his contention relies on Full Bench Decision of this Court in the case of Chinnam Pandurangam Vs. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and Others 1. The petitioners, in support of their contention, that Sripadam Bulleyya’s name was existing, at the relevant point of time, relies on copy of Adangal(s) issued on 09.10.2018. 5. Considered the rival submissions. Although notice was served on the unofficial 5th respondent, no appearance is entered. Section 5 (3) of the Act, reads as under: “The [Mandal Revenue Officer] shall, before carrying out any amendment in the record of rights under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) 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 1 (2007) 6 ALT 134 3 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 [Mandal Revenue Officer] shall consider every objection made in that behalf and after making such enquiry as may be prescribed pass such order in relation thereto as he deems fit.” 6. Full Bench Decision of this Court in the case of Chinnam Pandurangam, observed as under: “11. From the above discussion, it is clear that the requirement of issuing 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 is independent of the requirement of publication of notice in accordance with the second part of Section 5(3) read with Rule 19 and 5(2) of the Rules. The language of Form-VIII in which the notice is required to be published cannot control the interpretation of the substantive provision contained in Section 5(3), which, as mentioned above, casts a duty on the recording authority to issue notice in writing to all persons whose names are entered in the Record of Rights and who are interested in or affected by the proposed amendment.” 7. The combined reading of the provisions of the Act and the Full Bench Decision, makes it clear that the revenue officials, before entertaining any application for mutation of names in the revenue records, should issue a notice to the persons i.e., effected parties and also to the persons whose name is reflecting in the revenue records. In the present case, the petitioners being the legal heirs of the late Sripadam Bulleyya, are interested persons and effected persons, therefore, they, ought to have been served with notice. Without issuance of any such notice, the proceedings thus issued, mutating the name of the unofficial respondent would not stand the test of law. 4 8. In view of the provisions of Section 5(3) of the Act and the Full Bench Decision, this Court is of the considered view that mutating the name of the 5th respondent in respect of the subject land, without issuing notice to the petitioners, is not sustainable. The 4th respondent is therefore directed to issue notice to both the petitioners and the unofficial respondents, and pass appropriate orders in terms of the provisions of the Act. 9. With the above observations, the writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. ____________________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA Date:20.01.2025 ANI 5 204 THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION No.19324 of 2020 Date:20.01.2025 ANI