APHC010614992022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3233] WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN WRIT PETITION NO: 36765/2022 Between: 1. KALLURI SAVITRI, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, W/O BHAKTAVATSALAM, RFO.17-8-8/5, TUPAKULAVEEDHI, M.R.COLLEGE ROAD, VIZIANAGARAM, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRASDESH. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT, VISAKHAPATNAM, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, BHEEMUNIPATNAM DIVISION, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, BHEEMUNIPATNAM MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 5. BHUPATHIRAJU KIRAN KUMAR RAJU, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, S/O B V N SATYANARAYANA RAJU, RIO FLAT NO 5A, MACHARLA APARTMENTS, STREET NO.6, UMA NAGAR, KUNDAN BAGH, HYDERABAD. 6. BHUPATHIRAJU KRISHNA KUMAR RAJU, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, S/O B V N SATYANARAYANA RAJU, R/O D NO 50-117- 2 17/9/3, SEETHAMMADHARA, VISAKHAPATNAM, ANDHRA PRADESH. 7. BHUPATHIRAJU CHAITANYA VARMA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, S/O B V N SATYANARAYANA RAJU, RIO H NO 50-25-12, NARASIMHA NILAYAM, TPT COLONY, VISAKHAPATNAM. 8. BHUPATHIRAJU VENKATA NARASIMHA SATYANARAYANA RAJU, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, S/O LATE NARAYANA RAJU, R/O FLAT NO 201, D NO 66-67, SURYA RESIDENCY, MADHURA NAGAR, HYDERABAD. ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents more particularly Respondent No.4 herein in issuing the rejection proceedings vide Rc.No.336/2021C dated 29.09.2022, for the mutation application filed by the Petitioner on 14.09.2022 with respect to the subject property admeasuring an extent of Ac.0.62 cents in Sy.No.45/3 and Ac.4.48cents in Sy.No.45/2 of Nerellavalasa Village, Bheemunipatnam Mandal, Vishakhapatnam District, Andhra Pradesh, without assigning proper reasons and with a malafide intent, as being illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Articles 14 and 300A of the Constitution of India, and in violation of the provisions of Act 26 of 1971 and consequently set aside the proceedings in Rc.No.336/2021C dated 29.09.2022 issued by the Respondent No.4 Tahsildar and further direct the Respondent No. 4 - Tahsildar to reconsider the said application dated 14.09.2022 of the Petitioner herein and pass necessary orders following procedure as mandated under the Act 26 of 1971, and pass IA 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 pleased to direct the Respondent No.4 - Tahsildar to reconsider the application dated 14.09.2022 submitted by the Petitioner for mutation with respect to the subject property admeasuring an extent of Ac.0.62 cents in Sy.No.45/3 and Ac.4.48cents in Sy.No.45/2 of Nerellavalasa Village, Bheemunipatnam Mandal, Vishakhapatnam District, Andhra Pradesh, in the 3 interests of justice and equity, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 may be pleased to grant leave to respondent No.4 in WP.No. 36765 of 2022 to file counter affidavit in the above writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. N ASHWANI KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. P ROY REDDY 4 The Court made the following Order: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the unofficial respondent Nos.5 to 8. 2. This writ petition was filed questioning the proceedings of the 4th respondent vide Rc.No.336/2021C, dated 29.09.2022 rejecting the mutation application filed by the petitioner dated 14.09.2022 with respect to the subject property in an extent of Ac.0.62 cents in Sy.No.45/3 and Ac.4.48 cents in Sy.No.45/2 of Nerellavalasa Village, Bheemunipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, Andhra Pradesh, without assigning proper reasons. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that originally, the subject land belongs to one Thota Satyanarayana who is the father of 11 children (1 son and 10 daughters). The eldest son Thota Ramachandra Rao was managing the joint family properties. Subsequent to the demise of Thota Satyanarayana and thereafter Thota Ramachandra Rao, Thota Ramachandra Rao’s son T.V.Syamala Rao was managing the property. The petitioner in the instant case is the daughter of Late Thota Satyanarayana. Therefore having right over the property she asked T.V.Syamala Rao to partition the property as there was no proper income being derived from the property. Since the same was denied, the petitioner issued a Newspaper publication about the same. The petitioner initiated action in O.S.No.1559 of 2006 on the file of VI Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam to divide the said property into 5 11 equal shares, accordingly preliminary decree was passed in the said case on 18.06.2015. Pending suit, T.V.Syamala Rao alienated the property by creating third party rights vide Doc. Nos.1860/2015 dated 02.04.2015 and 6414/2016, 6415/2016, 6412/2016 & 6413/2016 dated 13.12.2016. Later, final decree was passed in the said suit by the said Court on 28.11.2019. Initially, the petitioner approached the 2nd respondent vide an appeal in Rc.No.4050/2017/C, under section 5B of the A.P. Rights in Lands and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (in short, ‘the Act, 1971’) against the issuance of pattadar pass books to the unofficial respondents/vendors. The said appeal was challenged in W.P.No.8741/2021 before this Court, then there was a stay of all further proceedings as an interim measure vide its order dated 22.04.2021. Whereas the partition deed vide Doc. No.4460/2021 was executed and registered pursuant to the above said final decree on 23.08.2021. The W.P.No.8741 of 2021 came to be disposed of as the petitioner herein undertaken to withdraw the appeal to take appropriate steps pursuant to the above said final decree granting her title to the share in the joint family property. Then the petitioner made an application under sections 4 & 5 of the Act, 1971, requesting to amend the record of rights and assess the proceedings issued by the Tahsildar dated 07.09.2022 and in pursuance of the same, the Tahsildar issued a notice vide Form VIII under Rule 19(1) dated 15.09.2022 and the same was impugned in the writ petition No.32176 6 of 2022, wherein an interim order of status quo was ordered dated 29.09.2022. Hence, the 4th respondent/Tahsildar rejected the mutation application of the petitioner by virtue of the above said impugned proceedings dated 29.09.2022 on the ground that there is a status quo order in W.P.No.32176 of 2022. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned proceedings of the 4th respondent dated 29.09.2022 is without application of mind judiciously while dealing with the application of the petitioner under section 5 of the Act No.26 of 1971. Mere existence of a civil suit is no bar on the revenue authorities to conduct enquiry on the application. The Tahsildar rejected the application of the petitioner due to pendency of the civil suit and order of status quo passed by the Hon’ble High Court. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the following decisions: (i) In State of Punjab v. Bhag Singh1, para No.6. (ii) In Erukala Uma v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh and others2. (iii) In R.Ram Reddy v. The State of Telangana and others3. (iv) In Dendukuri Suresh Rao v. State of Telangana4 and (v) In Aquadev India Ltd. v. State of A.P.5 1 (2004) 1 SCC 547 2 Manu/AP/3300/2013 3 Manu/TL/0469/2021 4 2024 SCC Online TS 2442 5 2021 SCC Online AP 2460 7 Finally, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought for the remanding of the matter to the 4th respondent for re-consideration afresh as per law after hearing all the parties concerned. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the unofficial respondent Nos.5 to 8 submits that the writ petitioner is not in possession of the subject land. The vendor of the unofficial respondents purchased the said lands through registered sale deed dated 17.10.2006. Either the unofficial respondents or their vendors are not the parties to the partition suit proceedings in O.S.No.1559 of 2006 as referred above. The provisions of the ROR Act cannot be misused. He refers to Section 8 of the Act, 1971 which deals with the Bar of Suits and Rule 26(6) of the Rules 1989 to say that the title deed or pass book shall be given only to those persons who are in actual possession of the land. No provision of the statute should be made redundant/otiose. If the matter is remanded to the Tahsildar/4th respondent, Section 8(2) of the above said Act becomes redundant. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following decisions: (i) V.Goutham Rao v. R.D.O., Jagtial 6. (ii) B.Pushpamma v. Joint Collector, R.R.District 7. (iii) Velagapudi Satyanarayana v. District Collector, Nalgonda8. (iv) Musku Mallaiah v. State of A.P.9 (v) Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab10. 6 2003 (1) ALD 681 7 (2005) 1 ALD 260 8 2000 (6) ALD 153 9 2005(1) ALD 485 8 5. In view of the above said facts and circumstances and upon consideration of the rival submissions made, it is to be seen that the 4th respondent passed the above said impugned proceedings dated 29.09.2022 on consideration of the application of the petitioner dated 14.09.2022 and the objections filed by the unofficial respondent No.6 dated 26.09.2022. He refers to the above said suit filed by the petitioner for partition of the suit schedule properties, grant of preliminary decree dated 18.06.2015 and final decree dated 28.11.2019 and he considered the objections of the unofficial respondent No.6 herein. He also observed that the unofficial respondent filed title suit in O.S.No.92 of 2021 on the file of District Court, Visakhapatnam which is pending for adjudication and the plaintiff made request not to mutate the revenue records as per the provisions of 9(i)(c)(2). He also mentioned about the interim orders in W.P.No.32176 of 2022. 6. Ultimately, upon consideration of the above said facts and circumstances mentioned in the impugned proceedings dated 29.09.2022, the pendency of the above said civil suit in O.S.No.92 of 2021, the interim orders of this Court dated 15.09.2022 in W.P.No.32176 of 2022 and the observance at the foot note of the impugned proceedings about the availability of appeal provision before the appellate authority and RDO, Bheemunipatnam under section 5 of the Act, 1971/the 3rd respondent herein without going into merits of the case, as there is an express provision of law to file an appeal before the above said statutory authority, the petitioner is 10 (2014) 3 SCC 92 9 directed to file an appeal before the 3rd respondent herein, if so aggrieved by rising all the above said contentions before the said authority, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of this order enclosing all the necessary documents in support of her claim. On receipt of the said appeal, the 3rd respondent is directed to consider and dispose of the same by hearing all the parties concerned including the petitioner, unofficial respondents and the respondent authorities concerned, giving due opportunity and the same shall be disposed of on its own merits, strictly in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. Interim order, if any, deemed to have been vacated. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________ JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN 24.09.2025 PND