::1:: APHC010296942025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 15468/2025 Between: 1. DEVARAPALLI VENKATESWARA REDDY, S/O. LATE D. VENKATA KRISHNA REDDY, AGE 54 YEARS, R/O. BRAMHANAKRAKA VILLAGE, JALADANKI MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KAVALI, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, JALADANKI MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): This Court made the following ORDER:- 1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents more particularly the 4th respondent in not restoring the petitioner name in the revenue records land to an extant 2 Ac.1.43 cents in Sy.No. 1297 of Bramhanakraka Village, Jaladanki Mandal, Nellore District duly considering the Forensic Department Report dt. 17.02.2021 as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the 4TH respondent to incorporate the petitioner name in the Web- Land Adangals/Records (Revenue Records) and to pass” 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of the subject land, admeasuring to an extent of Ac.1.43 cents in Sy.No.1297 of Bramhanakraka Village, Jaladanki Mandal, Nellore District, having inherited the same from his father. Based on the petitioner’s possession and enjoyment of the subject land, the revenue authorities mutated his name in the revenue records. Subsequently, it came to light that the subject land had been alienated by the petitioner’s father in favour of Smt. Ummareddy Kavamma in the year 2006. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the said documents are not genuine and are forged. Pursuant to the endorsement issued by the Tahsildar dated 31.12.2020, the 3 documents were referred for verification. It was found that the documents are not genuine, and the enquiry in this regard remains incomplete. Furthermore, no mutation has been effected in favour of the petitioner in the revenue records pertaining to the subject property. 4. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents furnished written instructions dated 20.06.2025 issued by the 4th respondent, wherein it is stated as follows:- “(9) The Forensic laboratory has issued report to the petitioner on 17.02.2021. In the meanwhile, the name of Sri Ummareddy Janardhan reddy S/o.Masthan reddy (son of Ummareddy Kavamma) has been implemented in revenue records on the basis of registered settlement deed No.3258/2017 dated 06.09.2017. (10) The petitioner has filed the present writ petition with a direction to the 4th respondent herein to restore his name in the revenue records in respect of the land Ac.1.43 cents comprised in Sy.NO.1297 of Brahmaanakraka village. In this connection, it is submitted that as long as registered settlement deed bearing No.3258/2017, dated 06.09.2017 subsists the name of the petitioner cannot be included in Adangal. The only remedy available to the petitioner is to get cancel the said registered 4 settlement deed by approaching competent civil court of law.” 5. The learned Assistant Government Pleader further submits that there is a serious dispute between the petitioner and third parties regarding the execution and genuineness of the registered settlement deed. Therefore, such disputes can only be adjudicated by a competent civil court and cannot be resolved by the revenue authorities in any manner. 6. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, and upon perusal of the material placed on record, it appears that the dispute between the petitioner and third parties revolves around the execution and alleged forgery of the registered settlement deed. It is a settled proposition of law that either revenue authorities or executive authorities are not competent to adjudicate upon the genuineness or enforceability of a title deed executed between private parties. Such disputes can only be resolved by a competent civil court after having full-fledged trial and material evidence. 5 7. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that even if the registered settlement deed is forged, the same cannot be declared as null and void by the revenue authorities, since they were not empowered to do so. But it should be done by a court of law after due adjudication. Therefore, the petitioner's grievance that the respondents are neither concluding the enquiry nor initiating mutation proceedings in his favour is contrary to the settled legal principles. 8. In view of the clear and categorical instructions issued by the 4th respondent, as extracted above, it is appropriate to direct the petitioner to approach the competent civil court by instituting appropriate proceedings for redressal of his grievance at the earliest. 9. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications if any pending, shall stand closed. _____________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA 27.06.2025 klk 6 116 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENAKTESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO.15468 of 2025 27.06.2025 klk