APHC010130372018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3209] TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA WRIT PETITION NO: 5755/2018 Between: 1. SMT. SRIRAMULA DEVAMMA,, W/O LATE SRIRAMULA RAMAIAH, AGE. 38 OCC. COOLIE, R/O SUDDAMALLA VILLAGE, UYYALAWADA MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT, A.P. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, A.P. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, NANDYALA, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 4. THE MANDAL REVENUE OFFICER, UYYALAWADA MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT, A.P. 5. S SAROJAMMA, W/O LATE SRIRAMULA RAMAIAH, AGE. 45 YEARS,OCC. HOUSE WIFE, R/O H. NO 26-100GNANAPURAM, 32ND WARD, NANDYALA TOWN, KURNOOL 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 a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus, declaring the action of the 4th respondent in mutating 2 the name of the5th respondent in all revenue records without cancelling the patty already issued to the petitioner and without issuing any notice to the petitioner or passing any order for removing the petitioners name in the revenue records before removing her name in the revenue records who is in the possession and enjoyment of the subject land in Sy No 60/2 A2 an extent of Ac 0.81 cents and in Sy No 65/2 an extent of Ac 2.00 cents in Suddamalla Village, Uyyaiawada Mandal, Kurnool district as being illegal and arbitrary and without jurisdiction and consequently direct the respondents to remove the name of the 5th respondent in all reveune records by including the name of the peittioner herein and pass 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 direct the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the subject land in Sy.No.60/2 A2 an extent of Ac.0.81 cents and in Sy.No.65/2 an extent of Ac.2.00 cents in Suddamatta village, Uyyalawada mandat, Kurnool District, pending disposal of the Writ Petition, and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V NITESH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE (AP) 2. T VIJAY HANUMAN SINGH The Court made the following ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 4 and the learned counsel for the 5th respondent. 2. The present writ petition is filed seeking to declare the action of the 4th respondent in mutating the name of the 5th respondent over an extent of Ac.0.81 cents in Sy.No.60/2 A2 and Ac.2.00 cents in Sy.No.65/2 of 3 Suddamalla village, Uyyalawada Mandal, Kurnool District, in the revenue records, as illegal, arbitrary etc., and for consequential directions to delete the same and to include the name of the petitioner and for such other orders. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that the petitioner got married to one Mr.Sriramula Ramaiah, an Ex-military man, on 10.01.1999 at Dhone, to whom the subject matter land was assigned under Ex-service men quota. He submits that the petitioner is the second wife of the said Sriramula Ramaiah and on 07.04.2017, the petitioner’s husband executed a will and on the basis of the same, the 4th respondent issued pattadar pass book and title deed in respect of the subject matter property to the petitioner. He further submits that surprisingly by deleting the name of the petitioner in the revenue records in respect of the subject matter land, the 4th respondent entered the name of the 5th respondent, who is the first wife of the said Sriramula Ramaiah and under those circumstances, the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court. He also submits that before deleting the name of the petitioner due procedure is not followed and in fact, the legal notice got issued by the petitioner on 28.12.2017 was not even taken into consideration. He submits that by virtue of the will dated 07.04.2017, the petitioner has right in respect of the subject matter property, more particularly, as the property is self acquired property of the said Sriramula Ramaiah and the action of the 4th respondent in recording the name of the 5th respondent in revenue records is illegal, therefore, the petitioner is entitled for the relief sought for. 4 4. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader with reference to the averments made in the counter affidavit made submissions inter alia that after following due procedure as contemplated under law, the mutations in respect of 5th respondent have been made. He also submits that on 16.12.2017, the request of the petitioner for issuance of pattadar pass books was rejected by assigning specific reasons. Drawing the attention of this Court to the Endorsement dated 16.12.2017 (Ex.P5), he further submits that in the Service Register of late Sriramula Ramaiah, the 5th respondent’s name is recorded as his wife and as no registered documents were produced by the petitioner, her name in respect of the subject matter land cannot be mutated in the revenue records. He submits that the said Endorsement was not denied by the petitioner. Be that as it may. He further submits that no reply affidavit is filed to the specific assertions made in the counter affidavit and therefore they are deemed to have been admitted. He contends that in the said circumstances, no relief, as prayed for by the petitioner, can be granted. 5. The learned counsel for the 5th respondent while supporting the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 4, prayed the Court to dismiss the Writ Petition. 6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels on record, it is pertinent to note that the petitioner prior to filing of the Writ Petition approached the 4th respondent seeking mutation of her name in the revenue records in respect of the subject matter land. As noted earlier, the same was 5 rejected vide Endorsement dated 16.12.2017 by duly setting out the reasons. In view of the said Endorsement, the petitioner cannot expect the mutation of her name in the revenue records. She has not challenged/questioned the said Endorsement, which is fatal. Be that as it may. In the counter affidavit, it is specifically asserted that the 4th respondent followed the procedure contemplated under the provisions of the R.O.R Act. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner got issued a legal notice dated 28.12.2017 and the same was not taken into consideration, on perusal of the said notice, it is clear that the petitioner is claiming interest over the subject matter property on the basis of a will. It is not in dispute that the said will is unregistered and obviously taking the said aspect into consideration in the Endorsement dated 19.12.2017, the 4th respondent had mentioned that no registered document is submitted by the petitioner to consider the request for mutation of her name in the revenue records. 7. In the light of the above stated position, more particularly, in view of the Endorsement dated 19.12.2017, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought for in the present Writ Petition. Therefore, the same is dismissed. Needless to observe that this order will not preclude the petitioner to claim right in respect of the property on the basis of the so called will dated 07.04.2017 before the competent Civil Court. 6 8. For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ NINALA JAYASURYA, J Dt: 30.12.2025 SJ 7 141 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA WRIT PETITION NO: 5755 of 2018 Dated: 30.12.2025 SJ