HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI C.C.No.3095 of 2024 & W.P.No.41165 of 2022 COMMON ORDER: Non-consideration of representations dated 30.05.2022, 05.09.2022 and 21.11.2022 for mutation of his name in 1-B Register with regard to the land bearing survey No.503/7 in Khata No.1488 to an extent of Ac.1.02 cents situated in Sundarayyapeta village, Anakapalle Mandal, the present Writ Petition is filed. 2. Heard Sri M.Siva Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Krishna Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for official respondents and Sri Subbarao Korrapati, learned counsel for unofficial respondent. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit contended that the revenue authorities, without issuing notice and without following the procedure established under law, have mutated the name of unofficial respondent in the place of petitioner’s father with regard to subject property. He further submitted that after death of his father, the petitioner has submitted representations for mutation of his name in the place of his father’s name in the revenue records, but the respondents have not considered his request. He further submitted that he made a complaint to respondent No.5-District Collector on 30.05.2022 in Spandana. The District Collector has directed the 2 Revenue Divisional Officer to enquire into the same and accordingly, the Revenue Divisional Officer has entertained the same as appeal and issued notices to the parties. While pending the appeal before respondent No.5, respondent No.6-Tahsildar has mutated the name of respondent No.7 in 1-B register. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition is filed and this Court vide order dated 21.12.2022, granted status quo with regard to maintenance of revenue records. As the authorities have violated the orders of this Court, Contempt Case No.3095 of 2024 is filed. As such, prayed to pass orders protecting the interest of the petitioner. 4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader on counter submitted that as of now the registering authority is not entertaining any document and further the unofficial respondent has not placed any document for registration. If at all the unofficial respondent place any document, the authorities would follow law. He further submitted that the petitioner and respondent No.7 can contest their cases before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Anakapalli, who is Appellate Authority under the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Lands and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 or to approach the competent Civil Court to obtain declaration of title in respect of the subject property. 5. Sri Subbarao Korrapati, learned counsel for unofficial respondent submitted that the writ petitioner has to approach the competent civil 3 Court for declaration of right, title over the land in issue and earlier the writ petitioner got an ex parte decree of injunction and the unofficial respondent filed application to set aside the ex parte decree and the same is pending. He further submitted that the writ petition has become infructuous, as the appeal is pending before the competent appellate authority. The Writ Petition is misconceived and it is liable to be dismissed and prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. 6. In reply learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that by virtue of mutation of unofficial respondent’s name in the revenue records, the unofficial respondent may create third party interest, for which the petitioner’s rights will be affected. In fact when the petitioner’s father’s name was found place in the revenue records, without issuing notice to the legal representatives of the petitioner’s father, the Tahsildar has mutated the unofficial respondent’s name. In view of the same, pending appeal, the orders granted by this Court shall continue and prayed to pass orders protecting the interest of the petitioner. 7. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 8. Since both the cases are interlinked, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order. 9. The grievance of the petitioner is that he made application to the Tahsildar to mutate his name in the revenue records and non- 4 consideration of the same, the petitioner made a complaint in Spandana to the District Collector and the same was forwarded to Revenue Divisional Officer. In the meantime, the Tahsildar has mutated the name of the unofficial respondent in the revenue records with regard to subject property. It is an admitted fact that petitioner made a complaint to the District Collector and the District Collector forwarded the same to the Revenue Divisional Officer and the same is pending before him. Once the petitioner approached the District Collector, this Court need not go into the merits of the case and adjudicate the Writ Petition. The petitioner can as well pursue his case before the District Collector/Revenue Divisional Officer and can move appropriate application and seek appropriate relief, if the petitioner thinks that the unofficial respondent may create third party interest. In the said circumstances, this Court cannot extend the status quo order passed by this Court pending disposal of the appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, as any observations made here would influence the said authority. 10. In view of the facts and circumstances and taking the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Writ Petition is disposed of. The petitioner is at liberty to make appropriate application before the Revenue Divisional Officer for granting interim orders. 11. The Contempt Case is filed under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against the respondents for willful disobedience of the 5 order dated 21.12.2022 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.41165 of 2022. 12. In view of the disposal of Writ Petition No.41165 of 2022, there is nothing remains for adjudication in the Contempt Case and the Contempt Case is liable to be closed. 13. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of and the Contempt Case is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 17.02.2025 MP 6 103 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI C.C.No.3095 of 2024 & W.P.No.41165 of 2022 17.02.2025 MP 7 HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH MAIN CASE No.: C.C.No.3095 of 2024 & W.P.No.41165 of 2022 PROCEEDING SHEET S. No DATE ORDER 6. 17.02.2025 RC, J The Writ Petition is disposed of and the Contempt Case is closed. (vide separate common order) ______ RC, J MP 8