APHC010423402022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] MONDAY ,THE THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 26083/2022 Between: Trilochan Builders And Developers Pvt Ltd ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SUBBA RAO KORRAPATI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. G RAMA GOPAL The Court made the following: ORDER: Entering the name of the 5th respondent in the revenue records as pattadar for the land to an extent of Ac.0.32 cents in Sy.No.58/8 of SampathipuramVillage, Anakapalle Mandal &District and thereby interfering with the possession of the petitioner and his purchasers is the grievance. 2. Heard Sri Subba Rao Korrapati, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri G.Ram Gopal, learned counsel for the 5threspondent and Sri J.Krishna Praneeth, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. 2 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in elaboration to what has been stated in the writ affidavit submitted that the petitioner purchased the subject property to an extent of Ac.0.32 cents in Sy.No.58/8 under 3 registered sale deeds dated 01.02.2017, 14.02.2017 and 09.03.2017 from one Sri Pinapathruni Bharath Kumar and three others. Pursuantly, it made an application to the Revenue Divisional Officer for conversion of the subject lands from agriculture to non-agriculture purposes under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Land (Conversion for Non-Agricultural purposes) Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 2006) and the authority concerned,after fulfledged enquiry, issued proceedings dated 13.04.2018 and 14.04.2018 converting the said lands from agriculture to non-agriculture as per Rule 4 of G.O.Ms.No.98 dated 19.02.2018. Thereafter, the petitioner also obtained layout permission to the said lands from the concerned authority on 21.12.2018, later, sold the plots to various individuals and handedover possession of the said plots to them and they are in possession and enjoyment of the same. While so, the petitioner noticed that the name of the 5th respondent has been mutated in the revenue records and further with the help of official respondents, the 5threspondent is trying to interfere with the possession of the petitioner. As there is a procedural irregularity on the part of the revenue authorities, the petitioner invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under 226 of Constitution filed the present writ petition. If the 5th respondent’s name subsists in the revenue records, it will affect the rights 3 of the petitioner, as such, prayed to pass appropriate orders protecting the interest of the petitioner. 4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader while justifying the action of the revenue officials in mutating the 5th respondent’s name in the revenue records on counter contended that earlier 5th respondent’s husband name has been found place in the revenue records and duly taking the same into consideration the 5th respondent name has been incorporated. There is no illegality or procedural irregularity in mutating the 5th respondent’s name. If at all the petitioner has any grievance, it has to approach the concerned Appellate Authority as per ROR Act. The writ petition deserves dismissal accordingly, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 5. Sri G.Rama Gopal, learned counsel for the 5th respondent on counter submitted that the 5th respondent got the subject property through her husband and the revenue records also reflect the same. The said documents have not been taken into consideration while issuing the conversion proceedings in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner has no right or title over the subject land. In fact, the said conversion proceedings do not clearly specify Sy.No.58/8. In view of the same, the petitioner cannot find fault with the mutation took place in favour of the 5th respondent. Even otherwise if the petitioner is aggrieved by incorporation of the 5th respondent’s name in revenue records, has to file appeal before competent authority but cannot ventilate its grievance before this Court invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction. 4 The writ petition is misconceived, devoid of merits, accordingly, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 6. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 7. The petitioner is claiming the subject property by way of three separate sale deeds of the year 2017. Pursuant to the said purchase, it has made an application for conversion of the law from agriculture to non agriculture land and also obtained layout permission. The 5th respondent filed a memo along with copy of pattadar passbook and title deed passed …. was served across the bench. A perusal of the material available on record would indicate that earlier the 5th respondent’s husband name was found in the revenue records and later the 5th respondent name was mutated in the revenue records and pattadar passbook was also issued in respect of the subject property that is much after the issuance of conversion proceedings and layout permission dated 21.12.2018 in favour of the petitioner. It is very surprising to notice as to how the pattadar passbook has been issued in favour of the 5th respondent particularly when conversion of the subject land from agriculture to non agriculture already took place by that time. 8. The record would further indicate that there is some dispute between the petitioner and the 5th respondent. Rightly or wrongly when the conversion took place, the revenue authorities cannot entertain any application under ROR Act, 1971. The petitioners case is that before mutating the 5th respondent name in the revenue records and issuing pattadar passbook in 5 her favour, no notice has been issued. The counter filed by the revenue authorities is silent about the procedure followed by the revenue authorities before mutating the 5th respondent name in revenue records and before issuing pattadar passbook in her favour. It is not in dispute that at one point of time, the name of the vendor of the petitioner are found place in the revenue records. Subsequent to the purchase by the petitioner, the revenue authority issued conversion proceedings and layout permission. In the said circumstances, not issuing notice and without hearing them before mutation is unsustainable. This Court is not inclined to go into the merits and demerits of the case and find out whether the petitioner has right over the subject land or the 5th respondent. No reasons are coming forward as to why the 5th respondent has not questioned the conversion proceedings and also layout permission even after noticing them. 9. This Court basing on the material available on record granted interim orders on 24.08.2022, which reads as follows: “In the meanwhile, respondents 2 to 4 shall not take any coercive steps against the petitioner in relation to the land in Sy.No.58/8 of Sampathipuram Village, Anakapalle Mandal, for a period of four weeks.” This Court would like to take the said interim orders also into consideration while passing the final orders. 10. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case instead of adjudicating the matter under Article 226 of the constitution, this Court inclines to relegate the parties to the Tahsildar concerned (primary authority) to look into the records and decide whether the 5th respondent is entitled for any 6 issuance of pattadar passbooks in her favour. In the meanwhile, to meet the ends of justice, in the interest of both the parties, this Court is inclined to put the property in the dispute register. 11. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions: i. The Tahsildar concerned shall adjudicate on the issue of mutation took place in favour of the 5th respondent and issue pattadar passbook afresh by hearing all the parties concerned including the petitioner, the 5th respondent and other individuals, if any. ii. Both the petitioner as well as the 5th respondent are at liberty to submit their respective documents in support of their claim before the Tahsildar concerned. iii. On such submissions, the Tahsildar concerned shall duly take into consideration the material placed before him and other revenue records if any, and pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order in accordance with law. iv. Till such exercise, the revenue authorities are directed to put the subject property in dispute register and further they shall not interfere with possession of the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. 7 As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date: 03rd February, 2025 RKS