APHC010604802024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) // //Or/ ii! 3 ^ TUESDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 95 OF 2025 Between: M V Sridhar, S/o.M.S.Venkatesh Gupta, Aged about 77 years, R/o.D.No. 14- 568, R.V.M Street, Kuppam, Chittoor District ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. The District Collector, Chittoor, Chittoor District. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kuppam, Chittoor District, 4. The Tahsildar, Kuppam, Chittoor District, 5. The Sub-Registrar, Kuppam, Chittoor District, 6. The Mandal Surveyor, Kuppam Mandal, Chittoor District 7. M A Ravi Shankar, S/o.M,.S.Adinarayana, R/o. Unique graphics shop Radhaakrishna road, Kuppam Tow)i,Chittoor District. ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstancesstated 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 a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents without issuing the notice to the petitioner the respondent Nos.2 to 4 mutated the land respondent in Revenue Records for land in Sy.No. 66/6 an extent of Ac. 1-22 cents situated at Kuppam Urban, Kuppam Mandal, Chittoor District, as illegal, arbitrary, besides violation of principles of Natural Justice, in the name of 7th consequently direct the Respondents not to effect the mutation created in the respondent without following the procedure for land in Sy.No. 66/6 an extent of Ac. 1-22 cents situated at Kuppam Urban, Kuppam Mandal, Chittoor District. 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 name of 7th r direct the respondents not to convert the land from Agricultural to non- agricultural for land in Sy.No. 66/6 an extent of Ac. 1-22 cents situated at Chittoor District by directing the Kuppam Urban, Kuppam Mandal respondents not to create any third party rights in the petitioner’s land in Sy.No. 66/6 an extent of Ac. 1-22 cents situated at Kuppam Urban, Kuppam Mandal, Chittoor District. lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Between: M A Ravi Shankar, S/o.M,.S.Adinarayana, R/o. Unique graphics shop Radhaakrishna road, Kuppam Tow)i,Chittoor District. ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. The District Collector, Chittoor, Chittoor District. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kuppam, Chittoor District, 4. The Tahsildar, Kuppam, Chittoor District, 5. The Sub-Registrar, Kuppam, Chittoor District, 6. The Mandal Surveyor, Kuppam Mandal, Chittoor District 7. M V Sridhar, S/o.M.S.Venkatesh Gupta, Aged about 77 years, R/o.D.No. 14-568, R.V.M Street, Kuppam, Chittoor District ...Respondents 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 vacate the status quo order passed in W.P.No. 95 of 2025 dated 06.01.2025 in the interest of Justice and pass. lA NO: 3 OF 2025 Between: The Tahsildar, Kuppam, Chittoor District, i' ...Petitioner/Respondent AND 1. M V Sridhar, S/o.M.S.Venkatesh Gupta R/o.D.No. 14-568, R.V.M Street, Kuppam, Chittoor District ...Respondent/Petitioner 2. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 3. The District Collector, Chittoor, Chittoor District. 4. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kuppam, Chittoor District, 5. The SubRegistrar, Kuppam, Chittoor District, 6. The Mandal Surveyor, Kuppam Mandal, Chittoor District. 7. M A Ravi Shankar, S/o.M,.S.Adinarayana, R/o. Unique graphics shop Radhaakrishna road, Kuppam Tow)i,Chittoor District. Aged about 77 years ...Respondents/Respondents 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 vacate the interim order dated 06.01.2025 in WP.No.95 of 2025 and dismiss the Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI PRAKASH C Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 6 : GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.7: SRI D V N ACHARYA The Court made the following: REGISTRAR THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO r WRIT PETITION No. 95 of 202^5 ORDER: The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief: ....to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents without issuing the notice to the petitioner, the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 mutated the land in the name of 7 respondent in revenue records for land in Sy.No.66/6 an extent of Ac. 1-22 cents, situated at Kuppam Urban, Kuppam Mandal, Chittoor District, as illegal arbitrary besides violation of principles of Natural Justice, consequently direct the respondents not to effect the mutation created in the name of respondent without following the procedure for land in Sy. No. 66/6, an extent of Ac. 1-22 cents, situated at Kuppam Urban, Kuppam Mandal, Chittoor District, forthwith and to pass such other order ororders th 2. Bare minimum facts which are absolutely essential (sans unnecessary details and particulars) for appreciating this order are set out infra under the caption 'Facts in a Nutshell'. 3. Facts in nutshell of the Petitioner; It is the case of Writ Petitioner that the property in an extent of Ac. 1-22 cents in Sy. No.66/6, situated at Kuppam Urban belongs to one late M. Suryanarayana Setty and he is having three children (1) 2 M.S.Govindaraju Setty (2) M.S. Adinarayana Setty (3) M.S.Venkatesh Gupta and the petitioner is the son of M.$. Venkatesh Gupta and the Unofficial Respondent is the son of M.S. Adinarayana Setty and the Unofficial 7^^ Respondent got mutated the name in the revenue records unilaterally without there being any documentary evidence, the aforementioned survey number land on 14.09.2024 influencing the Revenue Authorities without issuing a notice and the petitioner is also having right over the said property and the said Kuppam Village was upgraded as Municipality as per G.O.Ms No. 244 and G.O.Ms.No.70 dated 24.01.2020 and the land was increased abnormally and as per the 10(1) Adangal, the petitioner’s grandfather name was reflected till date 22.02.1981, and the property is the ancestral property and it is not self acquired property (Petitioner has not asserted anything about whose self acquired property) either of the Unofficial 7'^^ Respondent or his father. And now the Unofficial 7*'" Respondent is trying to convert the Agricultural land in to Non-Agricultural land to form a layout and sell the land. Though, it is not relevant for the relief prayed in the Writ Petition, the Petitioner has asserted that State cannot acquire the property under any law under Doctrine of Eminent Domain but cannot divest a land owner without following due procedure of law as if the State is acquiring the land. Facts in nutshell of the Unofficial 7*'^ Respondent: 4. The Unofficial 7 Respondent admits that the property is ancestral in nature and originally belonged to one M. Suryanarayana Setty, who died 3 % r intestate. After his death, the property, along with other ancestral properties, was orally partitioned among his children/siblings as stated in the prefatory paragraph. In the said partition, the subject property fell to the share of the Unofficial 7**^ Respondent’s father, who subsequently got f his name mutated in the revenue records on 14.05.1996. Thereafter, the sister of the Unofficial 7'*^ Respondent, filed a suit O.S.No.39 of 2017, on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Palamaner at Kuppam, seeking partition. The Suit was decreed on 29.06.2022, and the 7‘^ Respondent was allotted a 1/6*^ share in the properties of his father. Subsequently, the matter was settled amicably among the family members, and the Unofficial 7^*^ Respondent became the absolute owner of the subject property after obtaining a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the other co-sharers. He then applied for and obtained mutation of his name in the revenue records. 5. 6. It is further contended that the Writ Petitioner has no right, title, or interest over the subject property and has maliciously filed the present Writ Petition by abusing the process of law and without approaching the Court with clean hands. The Unofficial 7‘^ Respondent also submits that the counter filed by the government authorities supports his version. Further contention of the petitioner is that any claim or right over the subject property, he must file a proper Civil Suit for declaration before a competent Civil Court, as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case 4 of state of Rajasthan vs. Bhawani Singh\ Hence, the Unofficial 7 Respondent prays that the interim order of ^'status quo" granted on 06.01.2025 be vacated and the writ petition be dismissed. Respondent-Tahsildar as per the Facts in nutshell of the 4 7. counter; The subject land of the Writ Petition as per the Fair Adangal Record of Kuppam Village land in Sy No. 66/6 admeasuring an extent of Ac. 1-22 Government Wet” and stand in the name cents classified as of M.Suryanarayana Setty s/o of Venkatesham Setty, vide TD No.8 of Kuppam Village and Mandal, based on Fair Adangal the subject lands are considered as "Settlement Patta.” And as per ROR-I, the land Sy.No.66/6 extent of Ac. 1-22 cents was registered in the name of M. Adinarayana Setty and the Adinarayana Setty has obtained Pattadar Pass Book and IB vide Khata No. 139 and he died on 13.09.2005. And this officer has restated about the Suit filed by one P. Renuka sister of Unofficial 7‘^ Respondent for partition and the suit was decreed and he obtained willingness from all his brothers and sisters and the subject land was mutated in the name of the Unofficial 7‘^ Respondent after verifying the ■an and village accounts the subject lands are transferred to the Respondent and he further asserted in counter Sri M. Venkatesh Gupta S/o M. Suryanarayana Setty executed a valid registered document (Will) to his two sons (including the petitioner) and revenue Unofficial 7 (1993) Suppl. 1 see 306 5 r three daughters vide document No.14 of BK3/2003, in the said document the petitioner’s father didn’t mention about the property for the land in Survey No. 66/6, currently the land in Sy.No. 66/6 in an extent of Ac. 1-22 th cents is in continuous possession and enjoyment of the Unofficial 7 Respondent and it is further stated that the 7''^ respondent has not applied or submitted any application for conversion of Agricultural land to Non- Agricultural land and the counter reveals that the Petitioner has filed thiS' Writ Petition with malafide intention. 8. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION: The counsel for the Unofficial 7^'' Respondent argued that the Writ Petitioner and Respondent No. 7, A. Ravi Shankar, are related and share a familial connection. It is claimed that the Petitioner has concealed the fact of a family partition to secure interim orders from the Court. The property in Survey No. 66/6 was fallen to the share of his father through an oral partition between him and the father of the Writ Petitioner, the name of the father of the Unofficial 7^^ Respondent being recorded in the revenue' record on 14.05.1996. To claim the property in question, the petitioner should seek a recourse through the Civil Court. The counsel cited a judgment of the Apex Court in Bhawani Singh case (referred supra 1) and noted that the petitioner's sister has initiated a Civil Suit for partition concerning the same property, suggesting that it does not belong to the petitioner. Additionally, it was mentioned that a Will executed by the 6 petitioner's father among the family members did not refer Survey No. 66/6. Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the writ petition. In order to request the removal of the Unofficial 7''' Respondent's name from the revenue record, the petitioner must first demonstrate 9. proprietary rights over the property or, at-least, establish possession of the property in Survey Nunrrber 66/6. The petitioner has not stated in the affidavit in support of the Writ Petition that he owns the property or is in possession of it he only made bald statement that the property belongs to the joint family property. Despite obtaining several adjournments, the petitioner has not filed any reply or rejoinder to the counters provided by the 7‘^ and 4*^ Respondent-Tahsildar. Under Order VIII, Rule 5, C.P.C., if a specific averment in a petition has not been specifically denied in reply, it will be deemed to have been admitted. Although the C.P.C. does not in terms apply to Writ Proceedings, in the opinion of this Court the general principles of the C.P.C. applies. Hence, Order VIII, Rule 5, C.P.C. is applicable to Writ Proceedings also. As per the revenue record stands in the name of the Unofficial 7**^ Respondent’s father before mutating the name of the Unofficial Respondent. As per the counter of the 4 Respondent-Tahsildar, he has followed the procedure as contemplated under the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act 1971. The revenue record stands in the name of the Unofficial 7*'" respondent’s father prior to the name change to the Unofficial 7*^ Respondent. According to the counter filed by the 4‘^ Respondent, the Tahsildar has adhered to the th V 7 the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass has filed the present writ petition the law. Since the petitioner has not intervention, the Writ Petition is liable to procedures as outlined in Books Act of 1971. And the petitioner 1 with ulterior motive by circumventing established a case that warrants be dismissed. Accordingly it is dismissed. However without costs. pending shall stand As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any Sd/- SRI T SRINIVASA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR closed. //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, SRI. PRAKASH C, Advocate [OPUC] FOR REVENUE, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] SRI. D V N ACHARYA, Advocate [OPUC] 1. OneCCto 2. Two CCs to GP 3. OneCCto 4. Two CD Copies VNA HIGH COURT DATED:16/09/2025 ORDER r WP NO. 95 OF 2025 I } ? SEF 2025 E ^ Current Secnon DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS