W.P.No.29342 of 2025, DR,J APHC010567042025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3208] TUESDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 29342/2025 Between: 1. VELAGAPUDI VENKATA SUBBAMMA, W/O. LATE HANUMANTHA RAO, AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS R/O. DOOR NO.43-106/1-52-E/3, FLAT NO.204, LOTUS NANDAKAM, THOTA VARI STREET, AJITH SINGH NAGAR, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT, ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAI SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, 2. THE JOINT COLLECTOR CUM ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER AND SUBDIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, 4. THE TAHSILDAR, ONGOLE RURAL MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ...RESPONDENT(S): W.P.No.29342 of 2025, DR,J The Court made the following ORDER: 1. This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole, Prakasam District to implement the orders of the Joint Collector dt.30.12.2024 passed in R.P.No.d.Dis/D2/527/2017 within a stipulated period and consequently issue the Pattadar Passbook and Title deed in favour of the petitioner in respect of lands in of Ac.2-16 cents in Sy.No.278 of Karavadi Village, Naguluppalapadu Mandal, Prakasam District, Ac.0-67 cents in Sy.No.26 of Chejarla Village, Ac.2-30 cents in Sy.No.427, Ac.0-75 cents in Sy.No.334 and Ac.0-62 3/4 percentage in Sy.No.352 of Ulichi Village in accordance with law by following due process of law and pass…” 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 4. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of the subject land admeasuring Ac.2.16 cents in Sy.No.278 of Karavadi Village, Naguluppalapadu Mandal, Prakasam District; Ac.0.67 cents in Sy.No.26 of Chejarla Village; Ac.2.30 cents in Sy.No.427, Ac.0.75 cents in Sy.No.334, and Ac.0.62¾ cents in Sy.No.352, situated at Ulichi Village, Prakasam District. W.P.No.29342 of 2025, DR,J 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 3rd respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer under Section 5(5) of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971, read with Rule 21 of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Rules, 1989, seeking issuance of a Pattadar Passbook and Title Deed in respect of the subject properties. By order dated 24.02.2016, the Revenue Divisional Officer allowed the appeal and directed the 4th respondent to take necessary action pursuant to the claim of the petitioner. He further submits that certain third parties filed a revision petition before the 2nd respondent/Joint Collector against the order of the 3rd respondent dated 24.02.2016. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent/Joint Collector passed an order dated 30.12.2024, wherein it is stated that:- (A) The main contention of the 8th respondent and LRs of the petitioners No.1 and 2, respondent No.7 is that their ancestors have purchased the land in Sy.No.427/3, Sy.No.427/4, Sy.No.334/2 and Sy.No.352/1 of Ulichi Village and Madnal and since then they have been in possession and enjoyment of the schedule lands but they did not file any documents to prove that the schedule lands were purchased by them or their ancestors. B) Without filing any documentary evidence to prove their claim, the Respondent No.8 and LRs of the petitioners No.1 & 2, Respondent No. 7 are only relied upon the procedural lapse that the lower court has allowed the Appeal on the deceased Respondent without impleading the LRs, an Shaik Nabi Saheb (7th Respondent) was expired on 03-04-2005. As per the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) either the plaintiff can apply to implead the legal heirs of the deceased defendant or the legal representatives can implead themselves in the suit or appeal. But none of them apply for implead the legal representatives in the lower court. W.P.No.29342 of 2025, DR,J C) Set aside the procedural lapse, it is a fact that the Hon'ble Senior Civil Judge Court, Ongole has passed decree in O.S.No.34/64 declaring the title of the Respondent No.1 as per the partition deed i.e 1/4th of the property and all are aware that the Revenue authorities have no authority to decide the title. If they have any objection or aggrieved with the orders of the Hon'ble Senior Civil Judge Court, Ongole in O.S.No.34/64, they have to approach the Competent Court for filing Appeal Suit but they did not do so. D) However, it is true that the lower Court has passed orders without impleading and giving the opportunity to legal Representatives of the one of the Respondent. In view of the above foregoing discussions, it is hereby set aside the orders of the revenue divisional officer Ongole issued dated 14.02.2016 and remand the case to the district revenue officer, Ongole who is the appellate authority for passing appropriate orders by giving due opportunity to all the concern. With this order, stay proceedings issued in this case previously shall stand cancelled. 4. He further submits that even though the 2nd respondent/Joint Collector, by order dated 30.12.2024, remanded the case to the 3rd respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole, for passing appropriate orders after giving due opportunity to all the concerned persons, no action has been initiated by the 3rd respondent pursuant to the said order of the 2nd respondent/Joint Collector dated 30.12.2024 till date. Hence, the present Writ Petition. 5. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue, appearing for the respondents, submits that pursuant to the order passed by the 2nd respondent/Joint Collector, the 3rd respondent herein will pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a reasonable time. W.P.No.29342 of 2025, DR,J 6. Considering the submissions made by both the learned counsel and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court is of the considered view that on perusal of the order passed by the 2nd respondent/Joint Collector dated 30.12.2024, it is evident that there are disputes between private parties, and clear directions were issued to the Revenue Divisional Officer to pass appropriate orders after affording an opportunity of hearing to all the concerned persons. 7. In view of the same, the Writ Petition can be disposed of, without going into the merits of the case, by directing the 3rd respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer, Prakasam District, to pass appropriate orders as directed by the 2nd respondent/Joint Collector with reference to the order dated 30.12.2024, within a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No orders as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE D. RAMESH 04.11.2025 klk W.P.No.29342 of 2025, DR,J 90 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION No.29342 of 2025 04.11.2025 kkllkk