APHC010762242017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3525] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT APPEAL NO: 1808/2017 Between: V.sekanna ...APPELLANT AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh Rep By Its Principal Secretary and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant: 1. J U M V PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE (AP) The Court made the following Judgment: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) The appellant herein claims that his father had purchased an extent of Ac.7.42 cents of land in Sy.No.94/A of Aluru Village and Mandal of Kurnool District, by way of an agreement of sale, dated 13.07.1995. It appears that the entries in the revenue records were changed in favour of the father of the appellant on the basis of this agreement of sale. Subsequently, the 4th respondent, who is said to be the vendor, had approached the Revenue 2 RRR, J & Dr. KMR, J W.A.No.1808 of 2017 Divisional Officer, Adoni, for correction of entries on the ground that she had not been paid the entire sale consideration. The Revenue Divisional Officer, by an order, dated 05.06.2017, amended the entries in the revenue records. 2. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant herein had approached the erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad, for the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, by way of W.P.No.22693 of 2017. A Learned Single Judge had disposed of the Writ Petition, by an order, dated 11.07.2017, leaving it open to the appellant to file a revision before the Joint Collector. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has approached this Court by way of the present Writ Appeal. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Revenue Divisional Officer did not have any jurisdiction to alter the revenue records in as much as it would only be the Joint Collector, who could have revised the said entries in the revenue records. 5. The learned counsel would also submit that the Learned Single Judge ought to have considered the fact that the alteration of the revenue records, by an order, dated 05.06.2017, is wholly without jurisdiction and requires to be set aside. 6. Though the contentions of the appellant does merit consideration, the fact remains that the Learned Single Judge had taken the view that the same issue can be resolved by approaching the Joint Collector, by way of a 3 RRR, J & Dr. KMR, J W.A.No.1808 of 2017 revision under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (here-in-after referred to as “the ROR Act”). 7. In view of the fact that the Learned Single Judge has exercised his discretion and since we do not find any arbitrariness in such exercise of discretion, this Writ Appeal is dismissed, leaving it open to the appellant to approach the Joint Collector, under the provisions of the ROR Act, for appropriate directions. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ R RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J _______________________ Dr. K MANMADHA RAO, J Date: 22.04.2025 MJA 4 RRR, J & Dr. KMR, J W.A.No.1808 of 2017 110 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HON’BLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT APPEAL NO:1808 of 2017 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) 22.04.2025 MJA