APHC010067272019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA WRIT PETITION No.3055 OF 2019 Between: K.Guravamma, W/o.late Kommula Yesu, Aged 61 years, r/o.H.No.3-26, Nagarjaukunta village, Konakanamitta Mandal, Prakasam District. ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary (Revenue), Secretariat Buildings, Amaravathi, Guntur, State of Andhra Pradesh, and others. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr.M.Chalapathi Counsel for the Respondents: G.P. for Assignment Mr.Koti Reddy Idamakanti G.P. for Revenue The Court made the following ORDER: The present writ petition is filed seeking to declare the action of respondent No.3 in not taking any action on the representation dated 03.12.2018 forwarded by respondent No.2 as illegal, arbitrary etc., and for a consequential direction. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr.K.Arjun Chowdary, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and Mr.Ashok Kamireddy, learned counsel representing Mr.Koti Reddy Idamakanti, learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 5. 2 WP_3055_2019 3. On a consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the case of the petitioner is that the respondent Nos.4 and 5 got their names mutated in the Revenue records in respect of the land of an extent of Acs.3.75 cents, by playing fraud. It is her case that taking advantage of her illiteracy on the pretext of getting pesticides, the respondent Nos.4 and 5 took her Pattadar Pass Book and got the land mutated in their names by impersonating the petitioner. It is her further case that as the Police have not taken any action on her complaint dated 10.4.2018, she approached the respondent No.2, who in turn directed respondent No.3 to take necessary action and as no action was taken by respondent No.3, she filed the present writ petition. 4. Thus, from the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, respondent Nos.4 and 5 allegedly played fraud. 5. The respondent No.4 filed counter affidavit and the learned counsel representing him made submissions by drawing attention of this Court to the relevant paragraphs in the counter affidavit and the material filed along with it. He contends that the allegations of fraud made against respondent Nos.4 and 5 are absolutely un-true and in fact the petitioner and her son, Mr.K.Kondaiah, sold the subject matter land of an extent of Acs.3.75 cents in survey No.266/4 for Rs.2,63,000/-, vide registered sale deed dated 03.10.2011. He submits that thereafter the Revenue authorities after due enquiry under the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 and the Rules framed thereunder issued Pattadar Pass Book / Title Deed in favour of the unofficial respondents in respect of the said land. In fact, he submits that an extent of Acs.4.75 cents was assigned to the petitioner’s husband in the year 1953 and as there was no bar for alienation of property, which was assigned prior to 1954 i.e., 3 WP_3055_2019 before issuing G.O. Ms.No.1142, dated 18.6.1954, the registration of the land of an extent of Acs.3.75 cents was done by the Authorities concerned. He also submits that even assuming that respondent Nos.4 and 5 had committed any fraud, the petitioner has to work out her remedies before the appropriate forum and on the basis of the representation, the official respondents cannot initiate any action. 6. It may be pertinent to note that no reply affidavit is filed denying the specific assertions in the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.4. 7. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue states that despite his best efforts he could not secure any instructions more particularly as the representation is of the year 2018 and there was bifurcation of the Revenue Districts in the State of Andhra Pradesh. 8. On an appreciation of the rival submissions and as noted earlier, it is a case of bare allegations of fraud made against respondent Nos.4 and 5 that they got the subject matter land registered in their names taking advantage of the petitioner’s illiteracy. However, when a registered document is executed, unless the petitioner succeeds in proving her case before the Competent Court that the said registered sale deed got executed by playing fraud, as rightly contended by learned counsel for respondent No.4, the Authorities much less the Revenue authorities cannot take any action in the matter. 9. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner may work out her remedies in accordance with law, if she is so advised. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ NINALA JAYASURYA,J November 18, 2025 / vasu