APHC010269902025 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: 14682/2025 Between: J Venkatamma ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K SRINIVAS 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: 14682 of 2025 ORDER: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India seeking the following reliefs:- “..pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents more specifically the 3rd respondent in passing orders in D.Dis.No.702/2025/ROR Appeal dated 27.02.2025 without providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and contrary to the express provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 and consequently set aside proceedings issued by the 3rd respondent vide D.Dis.No.702/2025/ROR Appeal, dated 27.02.2025 and to pass...” 2. The claim of the petitioner is that the 3rd respondent who is the appellate authority passed an order vide D.Dis.No.702/2025/ROR Appeal, dated 27.02.2025 in the ROR appeal preferred by the unofficial respondents herein without considering the rights of the petitioner and without following due process of law. Hence, the impugned Appeal order passed by the 3rd respondent vide D.Dis.No.702/2025/ROR Appeal, dated 27.02.2025 is liable to be set aside. He further submits that even though the 1st appellant died pending appeal, the 3rd respondent i.e., the appellate authority proceeded further and issued impugned order, dated 27.02.2025 cancelling the webland entries stand in the name of the 3 petitioner which is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law. Therefore, the impugned Appeal order passed by the 3rd respondent vide D.Dis.No.702/2025/ROR Appeal, dated 27.02.2025 is liable to be set aside. 3. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue submits that against the appeal order passed by the 3rd respondent, dated 27.02.2025, the petitioner may file appropriate Revision application/petition before the Collector under Section 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbook Act, 1977 (for short ‘the Act’). But, without availing the alternative remedy available to the petitioner, he has filed the present Writ Petition which is illegal and arbitrary. Hence, the learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that a direction may be issued to the petitioner to avail alternative remedy as contemplated under Section 9 of the Act. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondents. Perused the material placed on record 5. For better understanding, Section 9 of the Act is extracted hereunder:- 9. Revision - The Collector may either suo-motu or on an application made to for and examine the record of any Recording Authority, Mandal Revenue Officer or Revenue 4 Divisional Officer under sections 3,5,5A or 5B, in respect of any record of rights prepared or maintained to satisfy himself as to the regularity, correctness, legality or propriety of any decision taken, order passed or proceedings made in respect thereof and if it appears to the Collector that any such decision, order Collector that any such decision, order or proceedings should be modified, annulled or reversed or remitted for reconsideration, he may pass orders accordingly: Provided that no such order adversely affecting any person shall be passed under this section unless he had an opportunity of making a representation. Section 9 of the Act contemplates that any order by the Mandal Revenue Officer or Revenue Divisional Officer under Sections 3,4,5A or 5B of the Act can be challenged by the aggrieved party by filing Revision. As the Revision provided under Section 9 of the Act is a statutory alternative remedy, in the opinion of this Court, the petitioner should avail remedy of filing Revision application/petition before the competent authority. 6. Accordingly, the petitioner herein is directed to file appropriate Revision application/petition before the 2nd respondent under Section 9 of the Act within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On filing of such a Revision application/petition, the 2nd respondent is directed to consider the same and pass appropriate reasoned orders, in accordance with law, within a period of two (02) months thereafter. Till then, status- 5 quo obtaining as on today shall be maintained by all the parties concerned in respect of the subject property as well as in respect to the revenue entries made with regard to the subject property. 7. With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel miscellaneous application, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 23.06.2025 TTM M 6 76 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 14682/2025 23.06.2025 TTM M