( IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 1184 OF 2022 Between: 1. Malireddygari Konda Reddy, S/o. Venkata Ramudu @ Sannapaiah, Aged about 54 years, Occ- Agriculture,R/o. Ammavarupalli, H/o. Munimadugu Village, Penukonda Mandal, Anantapuramu District 2. Malireddygari Venkat Reddy, S/o. Venkata Ramudu @ Sannapaiah, Aged about 49 years, Occ- Agriculture, R/o. Ammavarupalli, H/o. Munimadugu Village, Penukonda Mandal, Anantapuramu District. 3. Malireddygari Srinivas Reddy, S/o. Venkata Ramudu @ Sannapaiah, Aged about 47 years, Occ- Agriculture, R/o. Ammavarupalli, H/o. Munimadugu Village, Penukonda Mandal, Anantapuramu District. ...Petitioners AND 1. State of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. Rep. by its Principal Secretary. 2. The Joint Collector, Anantapuramu, Anantapuramu District. 3. The Sub-Collector and Sub-divisional Magistrate, Penukonda, Anantapuramu District. 4. The Tahsildar, Penukonda Mandal, Anantapuramu District. 5. Malireddygari Hanumanth Reddy, S/o. Konda Reddy, Aged about 48 years, Occ- Agriculture, R/o. Ammavarupalli, H/o. Munimadugu Village, Penukonda Mandal, Anantapuramu District. 6. Dubba Khshna Reddy, S/o. Venkata Ramudu, Aged about 47 years, Occ- Agriculture, R/o. Ammavarupalli, H/o. Munimadugu Village, Penukonda Mandal, Anantapuramu District. 7. Peddaramappagari Chinna Hanumanth Reddy, S/o. Venkata Ramudu @ Donnappa, Aged about 56 years, Occ- Agriculture, R/o. Ammavarupalli, H/o. Munimadugu Village, Penukonda Mandal Anantapuramu District. i 8. Sudhakar Reddy, S/o. Hanumanth Reddy, Aged about 39 years, Occ- Agriculture, R/o. Ammavarupalli, H/o. Munimadugu Village, Penukonda Mandal, Anantapuramu District. 9. Guddennagari Bayapa Reddy, S/o. Govindappa, Aged about 47 years, Occ- Agriculture, R/o. Ammavarupalli, H/o. Munimadugu Village, Penukonda Mandal, Anantapuramu District. ...Respondents 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 of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the order of the 3 rd respondent passed in RC.No.2423/2018/B dated 04.01.2022 as illegal, arbitrary and one without jurisdiction. 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 suspend the order of the 3'^^ respondent passed in RC.No.2423/2018/B dated 04.01.2022, pending disposal of the WP. lA NO: 2 OF 2022 Between: 1. State of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. Rep. by its Principal Secretary. 2. The Joint Collector, Anantapuramu, Anantapuramu District. 3. The Sub-Collector and Sub-divisional Magistrate, Penukonda, Anantapuramu District. 4. The Tahsildar, Penukonda Mandal, Anantapuramu District. ...Petitioners/Respondents AND 1. Malireddygari Konda Reddy, S/o. Venkata Ramudu @ Sannapaiah, Aged about 54 years, Occ- Agriculture,R/o. Ammavarupalli, H/o. Munimadugu Village, Penukonda Mandal, Anantapuramu District 2. Malireddygari Venkat Reddy, S/o. Venkata Ramudu @ Sannapaiah Aged about 49 years, Occ- Agriculture, R/o. Ammavarupalli Munimadugu Village, Penukonda Mandal, Anantapuramu District. 3. Malireddygari Srinivas Reddy, S/o. Venkata Ramudu @ Sannapaiah, Aged about 47 years, Occ- Agriculture, R/o. Ammavarupalli, H/o. Munimadugu Village, Penukonda Mandal, Anantapuramu District. ...Respondents/Petitioners 4. Malireddygari Hanumanth Reddy, S/o. Konda Reddy, Aged about 48 years, Occ- Agriculture, R/o. Ammavarupalli, H/o. Munimadugu Village, Penukonda Mandal, Anantapuramu District. 5. Dubba Krishna Reddy, S/o. Venkata Ramudu, Aged about 47 years, Occ- Agriculture, R/o. Ammavarupalli, H/o. Munimadugu Village Penukonda Mandal, Anantapuramu District. 6. Peddaramappagari Chinna Hanumanth Reddy, S/o. Venkata Ramudu @ Donnappa, Aged about 56 years, Occ- Agriculture, R/o. Ammavarupalli, H/o. Munimadugu Village, Penukonda Mandal Anantapuramu District. 7. Sudhakar Reddy, S/o. Hanumanth Reddy, Aged about 39 years, Occ- Agriculture, R/o. Ammavarupalli, H/o. Munimadugu Village, Penukonda Mandal, Anantapuramu District. 8. Guddennagari Bayapa Reddy, S/o. Govindappa, Aged about 47 Occ- Agriculture, R/o. Ammavarupalli, H/o. Munimadugu Village Penukonda Mandal, Anantapuramu District. H/o. years. ...Respondents Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court pleased to vacate the interim order granted on 19.01.2022 in W.P.No. 1184 of 2022. may be Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI O.MANOHER REDDY Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 4: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondents 5 to 9: SRI S. KRISHNA REDDY The Court made the following order: 1 > APHC010015852022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] THURSDAY ,THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 1184/2022 Between: ...PETITIONER(S) Malireddygari Konda Reddy and Others AND ...RESPONDENT{S) State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner(S); 1.0 MANOHER REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S); 1.GP FOR REVENUE 2.S KRISHNA REDDY The Court made the following Order: Aggrieved by the order vide Rc.No.2423/2018/B dated 04.01.2022 of the 3'^^ respondent/Sub-Collector, the present writ petition is filed. Heard Sri O.Manoher Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner 02. and Sri S.Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the unofficial respondents, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Sri Venkata Satyanarayana Revenue. 2 The learned Senior counsel for the petitioners while reiterating the contents of the affidavit submitted that the sub collector/S'"* respondent herein without having any jurisdiction or authority, has entertained the appeal of the unofficial respondents for cancellation of the petitioners name in the revenue records and for mutation of their names with regard to the subject property. The Sub-Collector has entertained and allowed the same. Infact the Revenue Divisional Officer has no jurisdiction or authority by virtue of Act 1971. It is a well settled principle of law that, if any individual has any grievance against issuance of pattadar passbook or mutation they have to approach the Joint Collector under Section 9(1) of the Act. The learned Senior Counsel further contended that there is a suit filed by the petitioners vide O.S.No.33 of 2008 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Penukonda for partition and it is in the final decree stage. By virtue of Section 8(2) of the Act, the revenue authorities cannot adjudicate the title under ROR Act 1971. The order impugned is without jurisdiction or authority. Accordingly, if the order impunged subsist, it not only affects the rights of the petitioners but also it leads to miscarriage of justice, accordingly prayed to allow the writ petition. 03. On the other hand, Sri S.Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the , unofficial respondent on counter contended that, if at all the petitioners have any grievance against the order impugned they have to approach Joint Collector by virtue of Section 9 of Act, 1971, the petitioner without availing the alternative remedy cannot invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 04. T 3 Constitution and wherein this Court cannot entertain the same and writ petition has to be dismissed on the said ground itself. He further contended that, in the partition suit, the petitioners have categorically admitted that they have only 72 share and preliminary decree has been passed to the said effect, having said so they cannot oppose the claim of the unofficial respondents before the Sub-Collector. In these circumstances, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 226 of the r hand learned Assistant Government Pleader while of the sub-collector contended that there is neither 05. On the other justifying the orders illegality nor procedural irregularity in passing the impugned order. As such before this Court. Even Sub-Collector the petitioner cannot question the same has jurisdiction to entertain the grievance of the unofficial respondents. If at all the petitioners have any grievance they can approach Joint Collector under Section 9 of the Act, 1971. Further the petitioners have to wait till the outcome of the suit filed by them. Instead of doing so, the petitioners are ventilating before this Court under Article 226 of the constitution. This writ their grievance petition is misconceived, devoid of merits and prayed to dismiss the writ petition. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for respective parties. 06. 4 % It is not in dispute that the petitioners’ name was found place in the 07. revenue records before passing the impugned proceedings. It also not in dispute that the petitioners got filed a suit in O.S.No.33 of 2008 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Penukonda for partition. The contention of the petitioners herein is that as against mutation that took place in favour of the petitioners the unofficial respondents have preferred an appeal before the Sub-Collector who is not having any jurisdiction or authority. There is no material on record to show that the Tahsildar has passed mutation orders under Section 5(3) of the Act in favor of the petitioner. It is a well settled principle that unless there is an order under Section 5(3) of the Act, there could not have been any appeal under Section 5(5) of the Act, 1971. In T.Rajeswari v. Joint Collector, SPSR Nellore District^ this Court held as 08. follows; “As per the scheme of the Act, it is oniy the order, which was passed under Section 5(3) of the Act is appealabie under Section 5(5) of the Act. In the absence of any order having been passed in the present case, there could not have been any appeal. The Revenue Divisional Officer, who is the appellate authority, while passing the order pursuant to the order of this Court, also did not verify as to what are the pending cases, and likewise the Joint Collector also did not make any efforts to set out the details. In other words, in the present case, there is no primary order and the appellate as well as the revisional orders are also bereft of any details. In such circumstances, both the orders i.e., appellate as well as revisional order cannot be sustained and required to be set aside and accordingly set aside. ” As per the above observations it is evident that in the absence of any order having been passed under Section 5(3), there could not have been any ^2015(6) ALT 339 5 appeal under Section 5(5) of the Act. but in the present case the Sub- Collector has entertained the appeal without there being any order of mutation under Section 5(3) of the Act, 1971 in favor of the petitioner. Admittedly, when the partition suit is pending before the Senior Civil Judge, Penukonda, for partition, the revenue authorities are precluded from entertaining appeal under the provisions of ROR Act, 1971. the order impugned is wholly unsustainable, without jurisdiction and it is liable to be set aside. 10. In these circumstances, Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of setting aside the order of the respondent No.3 vide Rc.No.1060/2022-2423/2018/B dated 04.01.2022. However, the unofficial respondents are not precluded from taking steps, if they have any grievance against the mutation of the petitioners name in the revenue records in accordance with law before appropriate authority. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand Sd/- N. NAGAMMA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR closed. //TRUE COPY// RrSECTION OFFICER To, Revenue Department. State of Andhra radesh, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. The Joint Collector, Anantapuramu, Anantapuramu Sub-divisional Magistrate, Penukonda Anantapuramu District. 4. The Tahsildar, Penukonda Mandal, Anantapuramu District. 5. One CC to Sri O Manoher Reddy, Advocate 6. One CC to Sri S. Krishna Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra 8. Two CD Copies District. [OPUC] Pradesh. [OUT] RAM HIGH COURT DATED:06/02/2025 ORDER FAHSJ^ C7 Sf' WP.No.1184 of 2022 2 W MAR 2125 Currant Section ^'sS£SpatchSS DISPOSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS