APHC010396572025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) i THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 21156 OF 2025 Between: 1. K Venkateswara Reddy, S/o Balakoti Reddy, aged about 60 years, Sankhavarappadu village Addanki Mandal, Prakasam District. 2. CH. Lakshminarayana, S/o. Nageswara Rao, aged about 45 years, Vempadu village, Mundlamuru Mandal, Prakasam District. 3. U. Prasada Rao, S/o Subba Rao, aged about 50 years, Dhenuvakonda village, Addanki mandal, Prakasam District. 4. Kurapati Pavan Kumar, S/o Narasimha Rao, aged about 45 years. Main Road, Addanki village Addanki Mandal Prakasam District. ...Petitioners AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. The District Collector, Bapatia District. Bapatia, Bapatia district. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Addanki, Addanki Mandal Bapatia District. 4. The Tahasildar, J. Panguluru Mandal, Bapatia District. 5. M/s Jaya Enterpises, represented by its Managing partner, K. Nava Durga, R/o. College Road, Inkollu, Bapatia District. ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction, more particularlyone in the r natpre of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned endorsement issued in RG.DT/32/^0025 dated 03-02-2025, by the respondent no.4 rejecting application of petitioners for mutation of their names in revenue records with respect to land admeasuring Ac. 1-16 % in Survey No.130/4C2 and Ac. 1-38 % in Survey No. 130/1 total land Ac.2-55 cents situated at Reningavaram village, J. Panguluru Mandal, Bapatia District as illegal, arbitraryand voilation of principles of natural justice and also against to the provision of AP Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 consequently set aside the same by directing the Respondent No.4 to mutate the names of the petitioners in the revenue records and issue pattadar passbook and title deed in respect to above said land. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct 4'^^ Respondent to mutate the names of the petitioners in the revenue records and issue pattadar passbook and title deed in respect of land admeasuring Ac. 1-16 1/4 in Survey NO.130/4C2 and Ac. 1-38 3/4 in Survey No. 130/1 situated at Reningavaram village, J. Panguluru Mandal, Bapatia District pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioners:SRI SATYANARAYANA NIMMALA Counsel for the Respondent No’s. 1 to 4: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.5: — The Court made the following order: APHC010396572025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATl (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No. 21156 of 2025 [3330] Between: 1.K VENKATESWARA REDDY, S/0 BALAKOTI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, SANKHAVARAPPADU VILLAGE ADDANKI MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 2 CH. LAKSHMINARAYANA, S/0. NAGESWARA RAO, ABOUT 45 YEARS, VEMPADU VILLAGE MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 3.U. PRASADA RAO, YEARS, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 4. KU RAPAT I PAVAN KUMAR,, S/0 NARASIMHA RAO, ABOUT 45 YEARS. MAIN ROAD, ADDANKI VILLAGE ADDANKI ■ MANDAL PRAKASAM DISTRICT. AGED MUNDLAMURU S/0 SUBBA RAO, AGED ABOUT 50 DHENUVAKONDA VILLAGE, ADDANKI MANDAL, AGED ...PETITIONER{S) AND 1 THE STATE OF AP, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, BAPATLA DISTRICT. BAPATLA, BAPATLA DISTRICT. 3.THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ADDANKI, ADDANKI MANDAL BAPATLA DISTRICT. 4.THE TAHASILDAR, J. DISTRICT. 5.M/S JAYA ENTERPtSES, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING K. NAVA DURGA, R/0. COLLEGE ROAD, SECRETARY, PANGULURU MANDAL, BAPATLA PARTNER INKOLLU,BAPATLA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S); 2 Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, ,the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned endorsement issued- in RC.DT/32/20025 dated 03-02-2025, by the respondent no.4 rejecting application of petitioners for mutation of their names in revenue records with respect to land admeasuring Ac. 1-16 1/4 in Survey No.130/4C2 and Ac. 1-16 1/4 in Survey No.130/4C2 and Ac. 1-38 3/4 in Survey No. 130/1 total land Ac.2-55 cents situated at Reningavaram village, J. Panguluru Mandal, Bapatia District as illegal, arbitrary and voilation of principles of natural justice and also against to the provision of AP Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 consequently set aside the same by directing the Respondent No.4 to mutate the names of the petitioners in the revenue records and issue pattadar passbook and title deed in respect to above said land and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1.SATYANARAYANA NIMMALA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: I 3 ORDER: The Writ Petition has been filed challenging the proceedings issued by the 4th respondent, Tahsildar, in Rc.DT.32/2025 dated 02.02.2025, through the said proceedings the Tahsildar has rejected the application to mutate the names of the petitioners, concerning land measuring Ac.116% in Survey No.130/4C2 and Ac.138 3/4 in Survey No. 130/1, totalling Ac.2.55 cents located at Reningavaram village, J.Panguluru Mandal, Bapatia District. The rejection was challenged on the grounds that 4^*^ respondent ought not have been rejected without providing an opportunity for the petitioner to be heard. The application for mutation was denied primarily on the basis of a suit, O.S.No.11 of 2005, which was decreed in favour of the plaintiff through a judgment dated 04.04.2019, in which the petitioners were not parties. Additionally, it is argued that the District Consumer Forum lacked the jurisdiction to grant the relief requested in O.P.No.267 of 2002 confirming the auction in favour of Vemula Venkata Narayana Rao on 16.06.2005, initiated by Alapati Naga Srinivasa Rao and others against the 5*'" respondent, M/s.Jaya Enterprises, represented by its managing partner, K.Nava Durga Rao. It is the case of the petitioners one Vemula Venkata Narayana Rao sold the property to Atiuri Vidhya Latha through a registered Sale Deed dated 31.08.2006, who then executed a registered General Power of Attorney in favor of her husband, Srinivasa Rao, vide document No.292/2011 dated 03.07.2011, authorizing him to manage the subject property of the writ petition. Srinivasa Rao later executed a registered sale deed dated 30.08.2011, vide registered document No.6656 of 2. 4 2011, in favour of the Srd petitioner and other petitioners. All petitioners subsequently applied to have their names mutated in the revenue records, but their applications were rejected through the impugned proceedings without the opportunity for a hearing. Therefore, the petitioners request the court to set aside the impugned proceedings and direct the 4*^ respondent, the Tahsiidar, to reconsider the matter after providing an opportunity for the petitioners to be heard. 3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue has provided the written instructions, dated 11.08.2025, (part of record) addressed by the Tahsiidar to the Government Pleader for Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, the above facts contained in the writ affidavit were restated in the written instructions additionally it is stated that vendors of the writ petitioners names where not recorded Pattadar in the revenue records and Webland, and on further enquiry, it is revealed that there are disputes over this land and the petitioners have purchased this land without verifying the facts. The Hon'ble Principal Junior Civil Judge Court Addanki in O.S.No.11/2005, dated 04.04.2019 has passed orders as follows: as "In the result the suit is decreed without costs directing the defendants 1 to 7, DIO to D19, D22 to D28, D30 to D33 frorr! dismantling 14 teak wood trees and disturbing the scheme of the 1st defendant firm by way of granting permanent injunction. So far as suit against D9 and D21 same is dismissed as abated and suit against D29 is dismissed." 4. Hence, prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. 5 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and government counsel for the official respondent and counsel for un-official respondent. 5. Section 5 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for brevity hereinafter called as ‘the Act’), postulates that making an amendment in the record of rights or refusing to make such an amendment an appeal lies to the Revenue Divisional Officer. 6. The 4**^ respondent -Tahsildar, has declined to include the names of the petitioners in the revenue records or the webland. Hence the appeal lies under Section 5(5) of the Act. The petitioners have not demonstrated a violation of natural justice, and it is not the contention of the petitioners that the 4*^ respondent exceeded his jurisdiction or lacked the authority under the provisions of the act to hold that the petitioners can maintain the writ petitions. In view of the alternative and efficacious remedy of appeal provided under the provisions of the Act, the present Writ Petition is not maintainable. 7. Furthermore, there is a title dispute between the petitioners and the unofficial respondent that must be resolved by the competent civil court. The Court refers the judgment of the common High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Smt. P.Ghousia Begum and others Vs Basireddy Rukminamma and others reported in 2013 SCC Online AP 1252 the Apex Court held that “when the pattadar passbook has been issued, the same cannot be cancelled automatically unless Civil Court 8. 6 of the same. The found that there is no justification for issuance presumption of correctness in issuance of pattadar pass book in favour the act and action of Government. But of the person is always in be corrected and rectified by the recording is not conclusive as it may Civil Court. Unless a competent Civil Court decides the actual title of the property in favour of any person, consequential measure for issuance or cancellation of passbook does not arise.” of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is liable to be not maintainable. However the writ petition is inclined to of the writ petition granting liberty to the petitioners to avail an 9. In view dismissed as dispose alternative remedy of preferring an appeal as contemplated under Section 5 (5) A.P.Rights in Land & pattadar Pass Books Act 1971. If the petitioners files any appeal within four weeks from date of receipt of the order the respondents are directed to entertain the appeal and dispose the appeal in accordance with law. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto shall stand closed. 10. Interlocutory Applications pending, if any. Sd/- K TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// c/o ION OFFICER SE To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. The District Collector, Bapatia District. Bapatia, Bapatia district. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Addanki, Addanki Mandal Bapatia District. w Tahasildar, J. Panguluru Mandal, Bapatia District. SATYANARAYANA NIMMALA, Advocate [OPUC] REVENUE, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 4. The 5. One CC to SRI 6. Two CCs to GP FOR 7. Three CD Copies PRK iir" 0 m #1# » ♦ 7 .-t HIGH COURT DATED:21/08/2025 ORDER WP NO. 21156 OF 2025 5 17 SFP 2925 ^ . Currant saciion > DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS