1 APHC010831472016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3206] FRIDAY,THE TWELFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 46355/2016 Between: 1. P NANDA GOPAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DIST & ANR, S/O MADHUSUDHANA RAO HINDU, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC; AGRICULTURE R/O D.NO.24-4-47/2, VELAMA STREET, NEAR MUNICIPAL OFFICE NARSIPATNAM VILLAGE AND MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 2. KOTHAPALLI LAKSHMI NARAYANA RAO (DIED), S/O HANUMANTHA RAO AGED ABOUT 64 OCC. AGRICULTURE R/O D.NO. 49-39-9/2 NGOS COLONY, AKKAYAPALEM, VISAKHAPTNAM, VISAKHAPTNAM DISTRICT. 3. KOTHAPALLI SUNDARA PAVANA KUSUMA KUMARI W/O KOTHAPALLI LAKSHMI NARAYANA RAO, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, R/O D NO.49-38-9/2, FLOT NO.201, ELEGANT TOWERS, G G O S COLONY, AKKAYAPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT PETITIONER NO.3 IS BROUGHT ON RECORD AS LR OF THE DECEASED PETITIONER NO.2 AS PER THE CO DT.19.10.2024 VIDE ORDERS PASSED IN IA NO.01 OF 2024. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF AP 5 OTHERS, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT VELAGAPUDI, THULLURU MANDAL, AMARAVATHI GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT AT VISAKHAPATNAM. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, NARSIPATNAM VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, GOLUGONDA MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 5. KANNEGANTI SHIVA LAKHSMI KUMARI, W/O ANJANEYULU, AGED 60 YEARS, OCC; HOUSE WIFE RIO GURUKRUPA APARTMENTS, OPPOSITE TO JMJ COLLEGE, SARALA NAGAR, TENALI TOWN GUNTUR DISTRICT. 6. VALLABHANENI KRISHNA RAO, S/O VENKATA RAMANA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, OCC; AGRICULTURE RIO KARAKA VILLAGE, GOLUGONDA MANDAL VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. ...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 toto issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the proceedings No. D.Dis.No. 531/2016/D dated 26-11-2016 passed by the 3rd respondent whereby directing the 4th respondent to incorporate name of the 5th respondent in the revenue records in respect of the lands covered by Sy.No.52, 25/4, 25/5, 53/1, 53/2, 53/3, 53/4, 55/1, 55/2 to an extent of Ac. 20- 68 cents situated at Karaka village 11/o KothaYellavararn village, Golugonda Mandal, Visakhapatnam District by deleting the names of the petitioners in contrary to the provisions of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 and contrary to the Principles of Natural Justice as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Principles of Natural Justice and consequently to set aside the afore said order dated. 26-11-2016 by restoring the entries in the revenue records pertaining to the subject lands and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. IA NO: 1 OF 2016(WPMP 57092 OF 2016 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 direct the Respondents to restore the names of the petitioners in the Revenue Records/Adangals/Web Land entries covered by Sy.No.52, 25/4, 25/5, 53/1, 53/2, 53/3, 53/4, 55/1, 55/2 to an extent of Ac. 20-68 cents situated 3 at Karaka village H/o KothaYellavaram village, Golugonda Mandal, Visakhapatnam District by suspending the proceedings No. D.Dis.No. 531/2016/D dated 26-11-2016 passed by the 3rd respondent pending disposal of the Writ petition and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. IA NO: 1 OF 2018 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 orders passed in W.P.No. 46355 of 2016, dated 30-12-2016 and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 vacate the status quo order dated 30-12-2016 in WP.No. 46355 of 2016 and also dismiss the writ petition and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2023 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 vacate the vacate the status quo order dated 30.12.2016 in W.P.No.46355 of 2016 and also dismiss the writ petition and pass IA NO: 3 OF 2023 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 receive Counter affidavit of the respondent No.5 on record by allowing the Leave Petition in the above Writ Petition and 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 Pleased to permit the petitioner No.3 herein to come on record as the petitioner No.3 being the Legal Representatives of the deceased 2nd petitioner Kothapalli Lakshmi Narayana Rao in WP.No.46355 of 2016 IA NO: 1 OF 2025 4 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 receive the documents i.e., copy of Sale Deeds and pass books and copy of Adangal of the 8th respondent/5th respondent in writ petition herein and copy of Sale Deed of the Petitioner herein as additional material papers, which are proper and necessary to adjudicate the matter in W.P.No.46355 of 2016, and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. V V LAKSHMI NARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE (AP) 2. NAGA PRAVEEN VANKAYALAPATI 3. G VASANTHA RAYUDU 4. J VENKATA RAMANA The Court made the following order: The 6th respondent has approached the Revenue Divisional Officer, Narsipatnam with the contention that the 5th respondent was the owner of various extents of land aggregating to Ac.20.68 cents in Karaka Village, Hamlet of Kotha Yellavaram of Golugonda Mandal and that she had sold the said land to him under a sale agreement, dated 10.06.1986. It is the further contention of the 6th respondent that O.S.No.114 of 2012 came to be filed and allowed before the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Narsipatnam and the said Court had also passed directions in E.P.No.23 of 2016, for execution of the deed of sale. However, the Registrar, Narsipatnam had expressed his inability to register the deed of sale on the ground that the web land record showed the name of the petitioners 1 and 2 as the owners of the said land. 5 2. The 6th respondent, on the basis of these statements sought rectification of the revenue record so as to remove the names of the petitioners and to incorporate the name of the 5th respondent as the owner of the said land. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Narsipatnam, by proceedings in D.Dis.No.531/16/D, dated 26.11.2016, accepted the request of the 6th respondent and directed the change in the record entries, in the web land, in favour of the 5th respondent, so as to enable the execution of the deed of sale in favour of the 6th respondent. 4. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioners have approached this Court by way of W.P.No.46355 of 2016. During the course of pendency of this Writ Petition, 2nd petitioner passed away and the 3rd petitioner was brought on record as his L.R. 5. Sri V.V. Lakshmi Narayana, learned counsel for the petitioners has raised various contentions on merits, as also on the right and title of the petitioners over the said land and also on the ground that the impugned order suffers from violation of principles of natural justice as the petitioners 1 and 2, whose names were incorporated in the web land records, had not been given a notice prior to the passing of the impugned order and that no opportunity was given to the petitioners to set out their case. 6. 6. Sri Naga Praveen Vankayalapati, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 and Sri J. Venkata Ramana, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6 would submit that the land belonged to the 5th respondent 6 and her name was illegally removed from the web-land record and the names of the petitioners were incorporated without notice to her. They would submit that on account of this violation of procedure, the impugned order cannot be sustained. They submit that there are no grounds for interference by this Court. 7. The submissions made by both sides effectively state that the revenue authorities had been modifying and altering the revenue records, without notice to the persons whose names had already been entered in the revenue records. 8. Rule 4 and 5 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971, require notice to be given to the persons in whose name the web-land entries are made or for that matter in the revenue records, before any further proceedings are issued for change of the entries in the revenue records. Apart from this, it is a basic tenet of principles of natural justice that any action taken, affecting the rights of a person, requires prior notice, to the affected person, to make out his case against the proposed action. Violation of this principle would automatically render any decision taken by the administrative authority to be invalid. 9. In the present case, there is no doubt that the Revenue Divisional Officer, Narsipatnam has not issued any notice to the petitioners 1 and 2 before passing the impugned order. In such circumstances, the said order is invalid and requires to be set aside. 7 10. Various contentions have been raised before this Court by both sides as to the merits of the case. This Court does not propose to go into those merits as these are issues which would have to be placed before the Revenue Divisional Officer. 11. In the circumstances, the impugned order, dated 26.11.2016, is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Narsipatnam for appropriate adjudication after notice to the petitioners 1 and 3. Needless to say, petitioners 1 and 3 as well as respondents 5 and 6 would be entitled to place their contentions along with supporting material before the Revenue Divisional Officer, who shall take a decision after giving an opportunity of hearing both sides. 12. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO,J RJS 8 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 46355/2016 12.09.2025 RJS