I I IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT APPEAL NO: 28 OF 2025 Writ Appeal under Clause 1^of the Letters Patent Appeal preferred against the Judgment in W.P.No. 856^ of 2022 dated 28-11-'2024, on the file of the High Court. Between: Kattamuri Sai Baba, S/o Subramanyam, Aged 62 years, Occ Business, R/o D.No. 11-150, Behind Satyasaibaba Temple, Piduguralla Town and Mandal, Guntur District ...APPELLANT. AND 1. Sathuluri Yesurathnam, S/o Chinna Hanumaiah, Aged 60 years, Occ Cultivation, R/o D.No. 1-158, S.C. Colony, Janapadu Village, Piduguralla Mandal, Guntur District 2. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Principal Secretary Revenue Department Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District 3. The District Collector and District Magistrate, Guntur District 4. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Gurazala Revenue Division Guntur District 5. The Tahsildar, Piduguralla Mandal Guntur District 6. K Ravi Babu, S/o Not Known The then Tahsildar, Piduguralla Mandal Guntur District Currenity working as Tahsildar Tenali Mandal Guntur District 7. The Station House Officer, Piduguralla Police Station, Piduguralla Town and Mandal Guntur District 8. The Village Revenue Officer, Janapadu Village Piduguralla Mandal Guntur District ...RESPONDENTS lA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 suspend the operation of the order passed in WP No. 8564 of 2022 dated 28-11-2024 pending disposal of this appeal.^ Counsel for the Appellant: SRI G PEDDABABU, SENIOR COUNSEL REPRESENTING SRI VENKATA SUBBAIAH POGULA Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SMT. KOPPARTHI SUMATH4- Counsel for the Respondent Nos. KOPPARTHI SUMATH4- Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 & 8: GP FOR REVENUE-- Counsel for the Respondent No.7: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER ■ APHC010013772025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3508] FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT APPEAL NO: 28/2025 Between: Kattamuri Sal Baba ...APPELLANT AND Sathuluri Yesurathnam and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant: 1.VENKATASUBBAIAH POGULA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR HOME 2.GP FOR REVENUE 3.KOPPARTHI SUMATHI The Court made the following Judgment: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) The 1®' respondent herein had approached this Court, by way of St W.P.No.8564 of 2022, with the contention that the name of the father of the 1 respondent, in relation to Ac. 1.02 cents of land in Sy.No.818/1 of Janapadu Village, Piduguralla Mandal, Guntur District, was removed by the 2 RRR, J & MRK, J W.A.No.28 of 2025 5'^ respondent, without notice and without any opportunity of hearing being given to the respondent. This contention of the 1®‘ respondent was disputed by the appellant herein, who was arrayed as 8^^ respondent in the Writ Petition. The 2. appellant herein had raised question of title and entitlement to the land and also brought to the Learned Single Judge, of the litigation pending between the parties. 3. The Learned Single Judge, after hearing both sides, had disposed of the Writ Petition, by way of an order, dated 28.11.2024. The Learned Single Judge, while refusing to go into the merits of the case and issue of title of the parties to the said land, had held that, the removal of the name of the father of the 1®' respondent, from the revenue record, without issuance of notice and without giving an opportunity of hearing, violates principles of natural justice as well as the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Rights In Land And Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (here-in-after referred to as “the Act) and the rules there under. On this basis, the Learned Single St Judge had set aside the deletion of the name of the father of the 1 respondent, from the revenue reords, and directed the Tahsildar, who is the 5^^ respondent herein, to restore the name of the father of the 1®' respondent and thereafter to take further steps, if any grievance is put forward by the appellant herein. 3 RRR, J & MRK, J W.A.No.28 of 2025 Aggrieved by the same, the 8'^ respondent, in the Writ Petition has filed the present Writ Appeal. 4. Sri G. Peddababu, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri Venkata Subbaiah Pogula, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the direction of the Learned Single Judge, to remove the of the appellant from the revenue records and to incorporate the name of the father of the 1®' respondent in the revenue records, was not necessary. He would submit that the Learned Single Judge, after holding that notice of opportunity was not given to the 1®* respondent herein, should have permitted both the parties to approach the 5'^ respondent-Tahsildar, for a decision as to whose name should be included in the revenue records. The Learned Senior Counsel submits that the deletion of the name of the appellant, from the records, would affect the rights of the appellant, in the pending civil 5. name revenue litigation. Heard Smt. K. Sumathi, learned counsel appearing for the 1 6. respondent. A perusal of the record as well as the Judgment of the Learned Single Judge would show that notice was not given to the 1®* respondent before the name of the father of the 1®* respondent was removed from the revenue records. It is a case of the 1^^ respondent that the 1^* respondent had substantial objections for such removal and deletion of the name of the father 7. RRR, J & MRK, J t'. W.A.No.28of2025 of the 1®‘ respondent, without an opportunity of hearing, was violative of the provisions of the Act and the rules, apart from being violative of the principles of natural justice. 8. We are in agreement with the findings of the Learned Single Judge that the name of the father of the 1®‘ respondent has been deleted, without opportunity and notice being given to the 1®‘ respondent. 9. The primary ground of the appellant appears to be that the Learned Single Judge, while holding that the deletion of names was not in accordance with law, should have permitted both sides to make proper representations before the 5'^ respondent-Tahsildar, instead of directing deletion of the name of the appellant. This objection appears to be taken to protect the rights of the appellant in the pending civil litigation. 10. In these circumstances, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of this Writ Appeal, by affirming the Judgment of the Learned Single Judge. However, the 5'^ respondent-Tahsildar, upon an application being made by the appellant herein, shall determine as to whose name should be included in the revenue records, in relation to the aforesaid Ac.1.02 cents of land, within a period of six (06) weeks from the date of receipt of such application, after due notice and opportunity being given to the respondent herein. 5 RRR, J & MRK, J W.A.No.28of2025 11. Accordingly, this Writ Appeal is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- M.RAMESH BABU deputy registrar //TRUE COPY// SECiroN OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary Revenue Department Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District 2. The District Collector and District Magistrate, Guntur District 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Gurazala Revenue Division Guntur District 4. The Tahsildar, Piduguralla Mandal Guntur District 5. The Station House Officer, Piduguralla Police Station, Piduguralla Town and Mandal Guntur District 6. The Village Revenue Officer, Janapadu Village Piduguralla Mandal Guntur District 7. One CC to Sri Venkata Subbaiah Pogula Advocate [OPUCl_ 8. One CC to Smt. Kopparthi Sumathi Advocate [OPUC] 9. Two CCs to GP for Home, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUl^ 10. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]^ 11. Three CD Copies TF HIGH COURT DATED:10/01/2025 ORDER WA.No.28 of 2025 ^ 10 FEB 2025 m <5.^ . Current Section ^4oesPATCW«S^ DISPOSING OF THE W.A., WITHOUT COSTS