1 APHC010120032025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3208] MONDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 6003/2025 Between: 1. JATIPATI ADILAKSHMI,, W/O J.SRINIVASA RAO AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCC COOLIWORK, RESIDDENT OF SATULURU VILLAGE, NADENDIA MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT OF A.P., VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALNADU DISTRICT, AT NARASARAOPET. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, NARASARAOPET REVENUE DIVISION, PALNADU DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHASILDAR, NADENDIA MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT. 5. JATIPATI YEDUKONDALU, S/O LATE KOTAIAH, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, RESIDENT OF 2 EAST BAZAR, SATHULU VILLAGE, NADENDIA MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT. 6. JATIPATI ANKA RAO, S/O JATIPATI YEDUKONDALU AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, RESIDENT OF EAST BAZAR, SATHULU VILLAGE, NADENDIA MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. T V SRI DEVI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. PENUMAKA VENKATA RAO The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH WRIT PETITION No.6003 of 2025 ORDER: Aggrieved by the endorsement dated 04.03.2025 issued by the 4th respondent, the present writ petition has been filed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.5 and 6. 3. The 5th respondent obtained a decree in competent Civil Court in O.S.No.86 of 2018 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripeta for specific performance. After decree, the said decree has been executed through Court and accordingly, registration has been done in favour of the 5th respondent. Based on the above said transactions, the 5th respondent has filed an application for mutating his name in revenue records. The petitioner has submitted her objections to the said application and bringing it to the notice of the authorities about the suit filed by her for cancellation of the decree and the said suit was numbered as O.S.No.254 of 2022 and while pending the said suit, the 4 petitioner has requested the respondent authorities to restrain from mutating the name of respondent Nos.5 and 6 in the revenue records. The authorities without properly appreciating the objections filed by the petitioner has rejected the same vide impugned endorsement dated 04.03.2025 only on the basis of the legal opinion given by the learned Government Pleader based on the circular issued by the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration (CCLA) on 09.04.2022. In fact, the CCLA has given several circulars those are on 19.03.2024 and again on 24.09.2024. The said circular was not considered while issuing the impugned endorsement. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the 5th respondent is none other than the brother-in-law of the petitioner and he obtained a fraudulent decree and when it comes to the notice of the petitioner, she filed a suit for cancellation of the said decree and the said suit is pending consideration. In the said suit, the Tahsildar was made as a party. In the said circumstances, the authority should consider the objections filed by the petitioner in terms of the amendment circular issued by the CCLA on 24.09.2024. Learned counsel has made specific 5 reliance on the amendment, wherein it is stated that if any title suit is pending and the Tahsildar is made as a party to the said suit, even without having any interim orders from the competent Civil Court, the authority should place the said properties in the dispute register. 5. Reply to the said contentions, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.5 and 6 has made his submissions that respondent No.5 has filed a suit for specific performance and after contest, the said suit was decreed and for implementation of the said suit, respondent No.5 has filed a E.P. through Court and the subject property is registered in favour of respondent No.5. Once the property is registered in favour of the 5th respondent, the authority has to consider the application under Section 5(1) and (2) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short, ‘the Act’). In this case, the respondent authorities have rightly considered the objections filed by the petitioner herein and rejected her objections for not having any prohibitory orders from the competent Civil Court. When that being the position, the petitioner has an alternative remedy under 6 Section 5(5) of the Act to file an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer. 6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 4 has also made his submissions based on the averments mentioned in the counter that the respondent authorities have considered the objections filed by the petitioner based on the circular issued by the CCLA and after obtaining the proper opinion from the Government Pleader. On record there are no prohibitory orders from the competent Civil Court. While pendency of the suit, as per the circular issued by the CCLA, the property cannot be placed under the dispute register. 7. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.5 and 6 and learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and on perusal of the impugned endorsement, it shows that the respondent authorities have rightly considered and issued an endorsement stating that when there is a decree passed in favour of respondent No.5 and the same is executed and once the property 7 is in the name of respondent No.5, the authority has to consider the application filed under Section 5(1) and (2) of the Act based on the records. The authority can only reject or place any property in the dispute register when there is a specific prohibitory order by the competent Civil Court or by the authority under Section 5(5) of the Act or revision under Section 9 of the Act. But, in the instant case, there are no such orders passed by any competent Civil Court or by the Revenue Divisional Officer under the appeal or revision. But it is not out of place to say that as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner the CCLA has further made amendment to the circular dated 19.03.2024 and issued an amendment on 24.09.2024 wherein certain amendments were brought and the said clause was not considered by issuing the impugned endorsement. 8. In view of the said circumstances, without going into the merits of the case, the impugned endorsement dated 04.03.2025 issued by the 4th respondent is set aside remanding the matter to the competent authority to consider the objections as per the amendment circular issued by the CCLA on 24.09.2024. Further, 8 liberty is also given to the petitioner to get an appropriate order from the competent Civil Court. 9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH Date: 08.12.2025 Ivd 9 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH WRIT PETITION No.6003 of 2025 Dated: 08.12.2025 Ivd