APHC010482152025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3529] MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT APPEAL NO: 1003/2025 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set-aside the Orders passed by the learned Single Judge order dated 11.08.2025 passed in WP.No.21059 of 2025 Between: 1. SRI BODASAKURTHI SRINIVASA RAO,, S/O LATE BRAHMAJI RAO, R/O TUTIPALA VILLAGE, MAKAVARAPALEM MANDAL, VILLAGE, MAKAVARAPALEM MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT ...APPELLANT AND 1. SMT VIRODHI SATYAVATHI DEVI, W/O RAJARAO, AGED 62 YEARS. HOUSEWIFE, R/O KONDAPALEM VILLAGE, ROLUGUNTA MANDAL ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT,ANAKAPALLI. 4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, NARSIPATNAM REVENUE DIVISION, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT. 5. THE TAHSILDAR, MAKAVARAPALEM MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT. 2 RRR,J & TCDS,J W.A.No.1003 of 2025 6. SMT PYDIGANTIA SUBBALAKSHMI, W/O NARASIMHAMAURTHY, R/O ROLUGUNTA VILLAGE, ROLUGUNTA MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT. 7. T SMT BOLLAPRAGADA SURYA KUMARI, W/O VENKATA RAMAMURTHY, R/O SUJATHA NAGAR, PENDURTY, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT. 8. SMT YELLURU NAGALAKSHMI, W/O GURUNADHA MURTHY, R/O GACHIBOWLI, HYDERABAD, TELANGANA STATE. ...RESPONDENT(S): IA 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 pleased to grant stay the operation of the order dated 11.08.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P 21059/2025 Counsel for the Appellant: 1. V.V.S.RAMAKRISHNA.A Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. NANI BABU ROBBA 3 RRR,J & TCDS,J W.A.No.1003 of 2025 The Court made the following Judgment: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) The 1st respondent herein, had filed a MeeSeva application, dated 12.06.2025, before the 5th respondent for change of entries in the Revenue Records, relating to lands in various survey numbers of Tootipala Revenue Village, Makavarapalem Mandal, Anakapalli District, aggregating to Ac.60.00 cents of land. 2. The 1st respondent, had thereupon, approached this Court, by way of W.P.No.21059 of 2025, for a direction to the respondents herein to dispose of her application, at the earliest. A learned Single Judge of this Court, by an Order, dated 11.08.2025, had disposed of the Writ Petition with a direction to the respondents to dispose of the MeeSeva Application of the 1st respondent, within a period of six (06) weeks from the date of receipt of the learned Single Judge’s Order. 3. Aggrieved by this Order, the 8th respondent, in the Writ Petition, has filed the present Writ Appeal. 4. It is the case of the appellant that the 1st respondent does not have any right or claim over the property and as such, the said application could not have been considered at all. It is the further case of the appellant that this objection could not be raised before the learned Single Judge as the Writ Petition was disposed of, at the stage of admission. The appellant further contends that, Orders cannot be passed, by the 5th respondent – Tahsildar in 4 RRR,J & TCDS,J W.A.No.1003 of 2025 as much as the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (ROR Act), do not permit such rectification and also apprehended that the Tahsildar would be passing orders without notice to the appellant herein. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent, on the other hand, contends that, the 1st respondent has 1/5th share of the Ac.60.00 cents of the land and that the revenue records have been mutated earlier without notice to her whereby her name had been deleted. 6. This Court does not propose to go into the rival submissions made before this Court. However, the apprehension of the appellant that the Tahsildar would be passing Orders without notice to them has to be allayed. 7. In these circumstances, this Writ Appeal is disposed of, leaving it open to the Tahsildar to consider and pass orders on the MeeSeva Application of the 1st respondent, dated 12.06.2025, after due notice and an opportunity being given to the appellant as well as the respondents 6 to 8 in the Writ Appeal. 8. Needless to say, it would be open to the 5th respondent - Tahsildar to consider whether he would have necessary jurisdiction to consider such application and whether it is a matter to be decided by the Revenue Authorities or requires adjudication by the Civil Court. There shall be no order as to costs. 5 RRR,J & TCDS,J W.A.No.1003 of 2025 As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J ________________ T.C.D. SEKHAR, J Date:15.09.2025 KPV 6 RRR,J & TCDS,J W.A.No.1003 of 2025 186 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR WRIT APPEAL No:1003 of 2025 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) 15.09.2025 KPV