IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) " ’ THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE -<7 -O' a o wi i., C/i PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 28809 OF 2022 Between: C.Guna Sekhar Reddy, S/o. Late C.Damodhar Reddy Hindu, Aged About i^Years, R/o D .No. 1-30, Ranianujapalli Village, Chuguruwada Post, Tirupathi Mandal, Tirupathi District. ..Petitioner AND The District Collector Tirupathi, Tirupathi District 1. The Joint Collector, Tirupathi Revenue Division, Tirupathi District. The Revenu Divisional Officer, Tirupathi Revenue Division, Tirupathi . 2. 3. The Thasildhar, Tirupathi Rural mandal, Tirupathi District. 4. The State of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Principal Secretary Revenue Department, A.P.Secretariat, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 5. K.Nagamma, W/o Late Nagi Reddy, Aged about 65 years, R/o Chiguruvada, Utharapu Kandriga village, Tkupathi Rural Mandal, Tirupathi District. i ' •' V.Alivelamma , S/o Late V.Krishua Reddy, Aged about 69 years, R/o TirupathiTown, Tirupathi District. C.Subbarami Reddy, S/o C.Venkatamuni Reddy, Aged about 60 years, R/o Chiguruvada, Utharapu Kandriga village, Tirupathi Rural Mandal, Tirupathi District. M.Gunasekhar Reddy, S/o M.Venkata Subba Reddy, Aged about 45 years, R/o Chiguruvada ,Utharapu Kandriga village, Tirupathi Rural Mandal, Tirupathi District. M.Rajasekhar Reddy, S/o M.Venkata Subba Reddy, Aged about 47 years, R/o Chiguruvada ,Utharapu Kandriga village, Tirupathi Rural Mandal, Tirupathi District. Vemuru Sudhakara Reddy, S/o Vemuru Subbarami Reddy @Chinnabbareddy, Aged about 56 years, R/o 3-33/a, Chiguruvada, Utharapu Kandriga Village, Tirupathi Rural Mandal, Tirupathi District. RUmamahesh , S/o Late P.Krislinaiah setty. Aged about 57 years, R/o 25-39/1, Padmavati Nagar,MR Palle, •Tirupathi Urban Mandal, Tirupathi District. Chadeve Sai Abhinand, S/o C.H.Maheswara Reddy, aged 32 years, Occ Cultivation , R/o Ayagaripalle village, Bodevandlapalli Post, Yerravaripalem Mandal, Tirupathi District. Janne Subramanyam S/o Sui7anarayana, aged about 43 years, Occ Cultivation , resident of H.No.7-166/A, Perum Village, Tirupathi Rural Mandal, Tirupathi District. Kundeti Ganesh Babu S/oK.M. Ramachandraiah Chetty, aged 59 years, Occ Cultivation , resident of H.No.15-5-263,, Marrimanusandu, Tirupati Town, Tirupathi Urban Mandal, Tirupati District. A.Dileep Kumar S/o A.Dayaludu, Aged about 42 years, Occ Cultivation, resident of D.No.1-157, Mallamgunta Village, Chiguruwada Post, Tirupathi Rural Mandal, Tirupati District. 6 A 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. ...RESPONDENTS RR 6 to 10, 11, 12, 13 to 16 are impleaded as per the Courts order dated 30.01.2025 in IA.No.01, 02, 03, 04 of 2025 respectively in writ petition and affidavit. 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 in action of the respondents in not considering my representation/ requisition dated 22/07/2022 for mutation of revenue records for the schedule property situated in S.No 300/2, S.No 365/2, S.No 365/3, S.No 365/6, S.No 365/8, S.No 365/9, S.No 363 and S.No 366/2 of an extent of Ac.3.50 cents, Ac. 0.45 cents, Ac.0.38 cents, Ac.0.06 cents, Ac.0.02 cents, Ac.1.85 cents, Ac.4.40 cents and Ac. 0.07 Cents at Chiguruwada utharapu Kandriga Revenue village accounts, Tirupathi Rural Mandal, Tirupathi District to declare the in action of respondents as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and being violative of articles 14, 21 and 300(A) of the constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to consider the representation/ requisition dated 22/07/2022. 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 respondents to consider the representation/requisition dated 22/07/2022. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P JAGADISH CHANDRA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 5: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondents 6 to 10: SRI P. GANGI RAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondents 13 to 16: SRI D. KRISHNA MURTHY The Court made the following order: 1 APHC010473732022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] 0 THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 28809/2022 Between: C.Guna Sekhar Reddy ...PETITIONER AND The District Collector and others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.P JAGADISH CHANDRA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following order: Non-consideration of his representation/requisition dated 22.07.2022 for mutation of revenue records for the schedule property situated in S.Nos.300/2, 365/2, 365/3, 365/6, 365/8, 365/9, 363 and 366/2 to the extents of Ac.3.50 cents, 0.45 cents, 0.38 cents, Ac.0.06 cents, Ac.0.02 cents, Ac. 1.85 cents, Ac.4.40 cents and Ac.0.07 cents at Chiguruwada Utharapu Kandriga revenue village accounts, Tirupati Rural Mandal, Tirupati District, is the grievance of the petitioner. 2 Heard Sri Chetan, learned counsel representing Sri P.Jagadish Chandra Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Krishna Praneeth, learned Assistant Government Pleader for official respondents, Sri P.Gangarami Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.6 to 12 and Sri D.Krishna Murthy, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 13 to 16. 2. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit contended that, the petitioner is the absolute owner of the subject property by virtue of succession and he made a representation dated 22.07.2022 to the revenue authorities for mutation of his name in the revenue records in respect of the subject property. As the same was not considered by the authorities, the present Writ Petition is filed. He further submitted that he made an attempt to make application through online, but the same was not accepted. It would suffice for the time being if a direction is given to the respondent authorities to dispose of the representation of the petitioner, dated 22.07.2022 in a time bound manner. Accordingly, prayed to pass orders in that regard. On the other hand, Sri Krishna Praneeth, learned Assistant Government Pleader for official respondents submitted that, instead of making online application for mutation and issuance of pattadar passbooks and title deeds, representation. Even otherwise considering the representation at this length of time does not arise. He further submitted that unless an online 4. the petitioner has made manual 3 application is made, the request of the petitioner cannot be considered As such, no indulgence need be shown on the petitioner and prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. 5. Sri Ganga Ramireddy and Sri D.Krishna Murthy, learned counsel for unofficial respondents in one voice contended that the unofficial respondents are claiming the subject property by way of registered sale deeds and the petitioner has suppressed several facts and got filed the present Writ Petition. They further contended that the petitioner has approached this Court with unelean hands. During family partition, only two properties have fell to his share, but he is claiming entire subject properties by suppressing the real facts. If the representation made by the petitioner is considered without looking into the relevant documents showing right and title, the rights of the unofficial respondents will be affected, as such, sought a direction to the revenue authorities to hear the unofficial respondents as well before entertaining the petitioner’s representation for mutation. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by the 6. learned counsel for the parties. The case of the petitioner is that he made a representation dated 7. 22.07.2022 to the revenue authorities for mutation of his name in the revenue records with regard to subject property. It was also pleaded that the petitioner has made an attempt to make an application through online, but the same was not accented. The contention of unofficial 4 respondents is that the petitioner has got right over two properties only, I but he is claiming the other properties also. As rightly contended by learned Assistant Government Pleader directing the respondent authorities to consider the petitioner’s manual representation at this length of time does not arise. 8. G.O.Ms.No.209 Revenue (EA & AR) Department dated 14.06.2017 and G.O.Ms.No.3 Information Technology & Communications (Infra) Department, dated 22.02.2012 are germane for the present purpose. 9. The relevant portion of G.O.Ms.No.209 is extracted herein for better understanding. “The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, in his D.O.Letter read above, has proposed to introduce a new service to “Print Title Deed-cum-Pattadar Pass Book (PPB) through Mee Seva”. The Title Deed-cum-PPB are being issued at present through Mee Seva Service of “Mutation + Title Deed-cum- Pattadar Pass Book”. 10. Similarly, relevant portion of G.O.Ms.No.3 reads as follows: “In order to achieve uniformity and efficiency, it is decided that the statutory services, which are delivered through Mee Seva shall not be delivered in parallel in the manual format and all the departments and officials should scrupulously follow the Mee Seva protocol. Separate initiatives and stand alone applications running as of now in various districts shall also be merged and subsumed in the Mee Seva. ” 5 Perusal of the said G.Os makes it clear that a person, who intends to get statutory services, such as obtaining pattadar pass book and title deed, has to submit application through online by using M services only. ee-seva 11. In the present case, the petitioner has not filed any application for updating the revenue records through mee-seva, as such, the revenue authorities have not considered his representation. Thus, there is justification in the contention of the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue that unless an online application is made, the request of the petitioners cannot be considered. Further the unofficial respondents are also claiming certain properties in the Writ Petition. Since the relief sought by the petitioner is innocuous, this Court need not go into the aspect as to whether who is having right or title over the subject properties, it is for the revenue authorities, who have to look into the same, while adjudicating the representation of the petitioner. However, to meet the ends of justice, liberty can be granted to the petitioner to make online application for mutation and for issuance of pattadar pass book and title deed. 12. In view of the above and taking the submissions of learned counsel for the parties into consideration, this Court, without going into \ the merits of the case, is inclined to dispose of the Writ Petition by passing the following order: I 6 (i) The petitioner is at liberty to make an application through mee-seva as per the rules by duly enclosing the material in support of his claim. If the same is not accepted, he can make a manual representation as well to the Tahsildar concerned for mutation and issuance of pattadar pass book and title deed. (ii) On receipt of such application, the Tahsildar concerned shall consider and dispose of the same, after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner as well as to the respondents by taking into consideration the material placed by them, and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law, within a stipulated period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of the representation and communicate the same to the petitioner as well as the respondents. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no 13. order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications pending, if any in the Writ Petition, shall also stand closed. Sd/- K. TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// To, SECTION OFFICER 1. The District Collector, Tirupathi, Tirupathi District 2. The Joint Collector, Tirupathi Revenue Division, Tirupathi District. 3. The Revenu Divisional Officer, Tirupathi Revenue Division, Tirupathi. 4. The Thasildhar, Tirupathi Rural mandal, Tirupathi District. 5. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, A.P. Secretariat, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 6. One CC to Sri P Jagadish Chandra Prasad, Advocate [OPUC] 7. One CC to Sri D. Krishna Murthy, Advocate [OPUC] 8. One CC to Sri P Gangi Rami Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 9. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 10. Two CD Copies RAM J ■I HIGH COURT DATED:30/01/2025 ORDER WP.No.28809 of 2022 DISPOSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS