IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 21005 OF 2022 Between: Shaik Abdul Sattar, S/o Suren Saheb, aged about 79 years, R/o Narakoduru Village, Chebrole Mandal, Guntur District. ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Revenue Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati. 2. The Collector and District Magistrate, Guntur. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tenali, Guntur District 4. The Sub Collector, Tenali, Guntur District 5. The Tahsildar, Chebrole Mandal, Chebrole, Guntur District. 6. Gaddipati Nagaiah, S/o Subba Rao, age not known, R/o Itha Nagar, Tenali, Guntur District. 7. Koppisetty Sri Rama Murthy, C/o Gaddipati Nagaiah, age not known, R/o Itha Nagar, Tenali, Guntur District. 8. Penumatsha Vijaya Rama Raju, C/o Gaddipati Nagaiah, age not known, R/o Itha Nagar, Tenali, Guntur District. 9. Lethavadale Srinivasa Rao, C/o Gaddipati Nagaiah, age not known, R/o Itha Nagar, Tenali, Guntur District. ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 5th Respondent deleting the petitioner name in the Web Land Revenue/Online Revenue Record's in respect of the petitioner land admeasuring an extent of Ac 0.99 cents in Sy. No. 136-B of Narakoduru Village, Chebrole Mandal, Guntur District, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and contrary to the principles of Natural Justice and without jurisdiction, and consequently direct the 5th Respondent enter the petitioner name in Web Land Entry/Online Revenue Entry in respect of petitioner subject land. may lA NO: 1 OF 2022 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 5th Respondent enter the petitioner's name in Web Land Entry Online Revenue Entry in respect of petitioner land admeasuring an extent of Ac 0.99 cents in Sy. No. 136-B of Narakoduru Village, Chebrole Mandal, Guntur District, pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. VENKATA DURGA RAO ANANTHA Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 6 to 9: SRI PETA GNANA TEJA The Court made the following order: 1 APHC010346182022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) Qjii.ia [3332] THURSDAY ,THE SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 21005/2022 Between: ...PETITIONER Shaik Abdul Sattar AND ...RESPONDENT{S) The State Of Ap and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1 .VENKATA DURGA RAO ANANTHA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR REVENUE 2.PETAGNANATEJA The Court made the following: ORDER: The grievance of the petitioner is that the 5*'^ respondent deleted the name of the petitioner in the Web Land Revenue/Online Revenue Records admeasuring an extent of Ac.0.99 cents in Sy.No.136-B of Narakoduru Village, Chebrole Mandal, Guntur District. Heard Sri A.Venkata Durga Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri P.Gnana Teja, learned counsel appearing for the unofficial respondent Nos. 6 to 9 and Sri Krishna Praneeth, learned Assistant Government for Revenue for the respondent Nos.1 to 5. 2. 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitionerhas filed an appeal against the orders of the Tahsildar, dated 26.02.2022, whereby he ordered for mutation of the names of the unofficiaf respondents in the revenue records. Pending the Appeal and though the Tahsildar has knowledge about filing of the appeal by the petitioner, the Tahsildar has mutated the unofficial respondents’ name in the revenue records. Questioning the same, the present writ petition is filed. 3. 4. It is further contented that, now after filing of the writ petition, the appellate authority viz., the Sub-Collector, Tenali issued an endorsement, dated 12.06.2023 duly stating that the Appeal filed by the petitioner has been rejected pending disposal of the writ petition. The said endorsement is wholly unsustainable and unwarranted. The appellate authority cannot reject the petitioner’s appeal because the petitioner has approached this Court and got filed the present writ petition. The Tahsildar, after having noticed that the petitioner has filed an appeal against the mutation proceedings, ought not to have been implemented his own order and should have waited till disposal of the appeal. In these circumstances, the petitioner prayed to pass appropriate orders. Sri P.Gnana Teja, learned counsel appearing for the unofficial respondents submitted that though the petitioner preferred an appeal, but no interim order has been sought or granted by the appellate authority. In view of the same, there is nothing wrong in implementing the orders of the Tahsildar. If at all, the petitioner has any grievance, he can pursue the appeal filed before the appellate authority. Similarly, learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that the petitioner cannot file the present writ petition wherein law does not permit to maintain two parallel proceedings. As the petitioner has knocked the doors of this Court, the Sub-Collector has issued the endorsement stating that the petitioner’s appeal has been rejected pending disposal of the writ petition. Subject to the outcome of the writ petition, the 5. L V. 3 Sub-Collector would adjudicate the petitioner’s appeal and accordingly prayed to dismiss the writ petition. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on both sides. It is not in dispute that the Tahsildar has passed mutation proceedings in favour of the unofficial respondents. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sub-Collector. Pending appeal, as the Tahsildar has implemented his order, the present writ petition has been The Sub-Collector has issued an endorsement, dated 12.06.2023 stating that the petitioner’s appeal has been rejected pending disposal of the writ petition. The appellate authority ought not to have issued such endorsement and should have proceeded with the appeal in accordance with law. However, to meet the ends of justice, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition by passing the following directions;- The appellate authority viz., the Sub-Collector, Tenali/responde nt No.4 is directed to proceed with the appeal filed by the petitioner in accordance with law and pass a speaking order by hearing both the parties without adhering to the endorsement, dated 12.06.2023. The appellate authority is directed to dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible not later than three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. However, if any mutation took place, the same would be subject to the outcome of the appeal. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order , r • 6. 7. filed. i) ii) 8. as to costs. 4 As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- N. NAGAMMA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SE FFICER To The Principal Secretary to Revenue Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati. 1. The Collector and District Magistrate, Guntur. 2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tenali, Guntur District 3. 4. The Sub Collector, Tenali, Guntur District The Tahsildar, Chebrole Mandal, Chebrole, Guntur District. 5. One CC to Sri. Venkata Durga Rao Anantha Advocate [OPUC] 6. 7. One CC to Sri. Peta Gnana Teja Advocate [OPUC] 8. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] Three CD Copies 9. GSC «» HIGH COURT DATED;02/01/2025 ORDER WP.No.21005 of 2022 2Cr5 Section DISPOSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS