DR,J W.P.NO.16268 of 2024 APHC010322152024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3208] TUESDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 16268/2024 Between: 1. KURRA NAGESWARA RAO, S/O SUBBA RAO, AGED 62YRS, OCC CUTIVATION, R/O H.NO 16-33-16, 1ST LANE, BALAJI NAGAR, KOTHAPETA, OLD GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. KURRA GANDHI, S/O KURRA SUBBA RAO, AGED 58YRS, OCC CULTIVATION, R/O H.NO 16-4-180/A, KUMMARI BAZAR, NEAR GHANDHI STATUE, KOTHAPETA (POST), OLD GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. KURRA HANUMANTHA RAO, S/O SUBBA RAO, AGED 48YRS, OCC CULTIVATION,R/O H.NO 16-33-16/A, 1ST LANE, BALAJI NAGAR, MANI HOTEL CENTRE, KOTHAPETA, OLD GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 4. KURRA LAKSHMI SURESH, S/O KURRA GANDHI, AGED 28YEARS, OCC NIL, R/O H.NO 16-4-180/A, KUMMARI BAZAR, NEAR GHANDHI STATUE, KOTHAPETA (POST), OLD GUMTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 5. KURRA MADHU BABU, S/O KURRA HANUMANTHA RAO, AGED 25 YEARS, OCC NIL, R/O H.NO 16-33-16/A, 1ST LANE, BALAJI NAGAR, MANI HOTEL CENTRE, KOTHAPETA, OLD GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 6. KURRA PADMA, W/O KURRA HANUMANTHA RAO, AGED 42 YEARS, OCC NIL, R/O H.NO 16-33-16/A, 1ST LANE, BALAJI NAGAR, MANI HOTEL CENTRE, KOTHAPETA, OLD GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT. DR,J W.P.NO.16268 of 2024 7. KURRA VEERENDRA, S/O KURRA NAGESWARA RAO, AGED 27 YRS, OCC NIL, R/O H.NO 16-33-16, 1ST LANE, BALAJI NAGAR, KOTHAPETA, OLD GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 8. KURRA SUBRAMANYAM, S/O KURRA NAGESWARA RAO, AGED 29 YRS, OCC PVT EMPLOYEE, R/O H.NO 16-33-16,1ST LANE, BALAJI NAGAR, KOTHAPETA, OLD GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT 9. KURRA PADMAVATHI, W/O KURRA NAGESWARA RAO, AGED 57 YRS, OCC HOME MAKER, R/O H.NO 16-33-16,1ST LANE, BALAJI NAGAR, KOTHAPETA, OLD GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 10. THOTA SRINIVASA RAO, S/O THOTA SUBBA RAO, AGED 56YRS, R/O D.NO 31-14-25, AAKULA TATIAH STREET. NEAR HANUMAN TEMPLE, MACHAVARAM, VIJAYAWADA URBAN KRISHNA DISTRICT. 11. THOTA RAMBABU, S/O THOTA SUBBA RAO, AGED 53YRS, R/O D.NO 15-18-85, 2ND LINE, NANDIVELUGU ROAD, OLD GUNTUR, GUNTUR CITY, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 12. THOTA GURUNADHAM, S/O THOTA SUBBA RAO, AGED 46YRS, R/O H. NO 16-4-180, KUMMARI BAZAR, NEAR GHANDHI STATUE, KOTHAPETA (POST), OLD GUUTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, GUNTUR DISTRICT AT GUNTUR. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, GUNTUR DIVISION AT GUNTUR. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, GUNTUR EAST MANDAL, AT GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 5. ADAPA KUMAR, S/O KOTESWARA RAO, AGED 58YRS, R/O D.NO 24R/O D.NO 24-8-8, ADAPA BAZAR, R AGRAHARAM, GUNTUR CITY, GUNTUR DISTRICT. DR,J W.P.NO.16268 of 2024 ...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 topleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus (a)declaring the action of the 4th Respondent in passing orders vide proceedings Rc. No 398/2023-B dated 5.3.2024 wherein cancelling the entries made in Revenue Records lying in favour of Petitioners 1 to 3 and of deceased Mother of 10, 11 and 12th Petitioners in respect of their Lands admeasuring Acers 1.02cnts, Acers 0.50cnts, Acers l.00cnts and Acers 2.52cnts situated in Sy. No's 190/1/A1(Khata No 2605), 190/1A4(khata No 2608), 190/1A3(2607), 190/1A2 (khata No 2606) respectively of Budampadu Village, Guntur Mandal, Guntur District and further removing the names of 1,2,3rd and deceased Mother of 10, 11 and 12th Petitioners names from web land Records of the above said lands coupled with cancelling the E Paatadhar Pass Books existing in favour of Petitioners at the instance of 5th Respondent without adhering to the provisions of The Andhra Pradesh Rights In Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 and Rules made thereunder as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Principles of natural justice. Contravening the provisions of The Andhra Pradesh Rights In Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 and Rules made there under and Violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300A of Constitution of India and set aside the same and (b) Consequently direct the respondents to restore the entries made in Revenue Records in respect of theLands admeasuring Acers 1.02cnts, Acers 0.50cnts, Acers 1.00cnts and Acers 2.52cnts situated in Sy. No's 190/1/A 1(Khata No 2605), 190/1A4 (khata No 2608), 190/1A3(2607), 190/1A2 (khata No 2606) of Budampadu Village, Guntur Mandal, Guntur District in the name of Petitioners 1 to 3 and deceased mother of the Petitioners 10, 11, and 12 and also to restore the entries in the Revenue records and Web Land Records Pertaining to the said Land in favour of the petitioners coupled with re-issuing the Pattadhar Pass Books of the said Land in the favour of the Petitioners 1 to 3 and mother of the Petitioners 10, 11, and 12 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. B. MOHAN RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE DR,J W.P.NO.16268 of 2024 2. N RAVI PRASAD DR,J W.P.NO.16268 of 2024 The Court made the following ORDER: This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking the following relief: “…..to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus (a)declaring the action of the 4th Respondent in passing orders vide proceedings Rc. No 398/2023-B dated 5.3.2024 wherein cancelling the entries made in Revenue Records lying in favour of Petitioners 1 to 3 and of deceased Mother of 10, 11 and 12th Petitioners in respect of their Lands admeasuring Acers 1.02cnts, Acers 0.50cnts, Acers l.00cnts and Acers 2.52cnts situated in Sy. No's 190/1/A1(Khata No 2605), 190/1A4(khata No 2608), 190/1A3(2607), 190/1A2 (khata No 2606) respectively of Budampadu Village, Guntur Mandal, Guntur District and further removing the names of 1,2,3rd and deceased Mother of 10, 11 and 12th Petitioners names from web land Records of the above said lands coupled with cancelling the E Paatadhar Pass Books existing in favour of Petitioners at the instance of 5th Respondent without adhering to the provisions of The Andhra Pradesh Rights In Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 and Rules made thereunder as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Principles of natural justice. Contravening the provisions of The Andhra Pradesh Rights In Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 and Rules made there under and Violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300A of Constitution of India and set aside the same and (b) Consequently direct the respondents to restore the entries made in Revenue Records in respect of theLands admeasuring Acers 1.02cnts, Acers 0.50cnts, Acers 1.00cnts and Acers 2.52cnts situated in Sy. No's 190/1/A 1(Khata No 2605), 190/1A4 (khata No 2608), 190/1A3(2607), 190/1A2 (khata No 2606) of Budampadu Village, Guntur Mandal, Guntur District in the name of Petitioners 1 to 3 and deceased mother of the Petitioners 10, 11, and 12 and also to restore the entries in the Revenue records and Web Land Records Pertaining to the said Land in favour of the petitioners coupled with re-issuing the Pattadhar Pass Books of the said Land in the favour of the Petitioners 1 to 3 and mother of the Petitioners 10, 11, and 12 and pass….” 2. The grievance of the petitioners in the present writ petition is that the respondent No.4 passed an impugned order dated 05.03.2024 vide proceedings Rc.No.398/2023-B, cancelling the entries made in revenue DR,J W.P.NO.16268 of 2024 records lying in favour of the petitioner Nos.1 to 3 and of deceased mother of petitioner Nos.10, 11 and 12, in respect of the lands admeasuring to an extent of Ac.1.02 cents, Ac.0.50 cents, Ac.l.00 cents and Ac.2.52 cents situated in Survey Nos.190/1/A1 (Khata No.2605), 190/1A4 (Khata No. 2608), 190/1A3(2607), 190/1A2 (Khata No.2606) situated in Budampadu Village, Guntur District and also removing their names from the web land records and cancelling the E Pattadhar Pass Books existing in favour of the petitioners. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and learned counsel for the unofficial respondent No.5. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order dated 05.03.2024 has been passed based on erroneous appreciation of the factual aspects. The authority has relied upon the Will and cancelled the entries standing in the names of the petitioners, which is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Jitendra Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others1. In the said ruling, the Hon’ble Apex Court considered the identical issue and held as follows: “6. It is not in dispute that the dispute is with respect to mutation entry in the revenue records. The petitioner herein submitted an application to mutate his name on the basis of the alleged will dated 20.05.1998 executed by Smt. Ananti Bai. Even, according to the petitioner also, 1 2021 SCC Online SC 802 DR,J W.P.NO.16268 of 2024 Smt. Ananti Bai died on 27.08.2011. From the record, it emerges that the application before the Nayab Tehsildar was made on 9.8.2011, l.e., before the death of Smt. Ananti Bai. It cannot be disputed that the right on the basis of the will can be claimed only after the death of the executant of the will. Even the will Itself has been disputed. Be that as it may, as per the settled proposition of law, mutation entry does not confer any right, title or interest in favour of the person and the mutation entry in the revenue record is only for the fiscal purpose. As per the settled proposition of law, If there is any dispute with respect to the title and more particularly when the mutation entry is sought to be made on the basis of the will, the party who is claiming title/right on the basis of the will has to approach the appropriate civil court/court and get his rights crystalised and only thereafter on the basis of the decision before the civil court necessary mutation entry can be made. 7. Right from 1997, the law is very clear. In the case of Balwant Singh v. Daulat Singh (D) By Lrs., reported in (1997) 7 SCC 137, this Court had an occasion to consider the effect of mutation and it is observed and held that mutation of property in revenue records neither creates nor extinguishes title to the property nor has it any presumptive value on title. Such entries are relevant only for the purpose of collecting land revenue. Similar view has been expressed in the series of decisions thereafter. 8. In the case of Suraj Bhan v. Financial Commissioner, (2007) 6 SCC 186, It is observed and held by this Court that an entry in revenue records does not confer title on a person whose name appears in record-of-rights. Entries in the revenue records or jamabandi have only "fiscal purpose", i.e., payment of land revenue, and no ownership is conferred on the basis of such entries. It is further observed that so far as the title of the property is concerned, It can only be decided by a competent civil court. Similar view has been expressed in the cases of DR,J W.P.NO.16268 of 2024 Suman Verma v. Union of India, (2004) 12 SCC 58; Faqruddin v. Tajuddin, (2008) 8 SCC 12; Rajinder Singh v. State of J&K, (2008) 9 SCC 368; Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad v. State of Maharashtra, (2015) 16 SCC 689; T. Ravi v. B. Chinna Narasimha, (2017) 7 SCC 342; Bhimabai Mahadeo Kambekar v. Arthur Import & Export Co., (2019) 3 SCC 191; Prahlad Pradhan v. Sonu Kumhar, (2019) 10 SCC 259; and Ajit Kaur v. Darshan Singh, (2019) 13 SCC 70. 9. In view of the above settled proposition of law laid down by this Court, it cannot be said that the High Court has committed any error in setting aside the order passed by the revenue authorities directing to mutate the name of the petitioner herein in the revenue records on the basis of the alleged will dated 20.05.1998 and relegating the petitioner to approach the appropriate court to crystalise his rights on the basis of the alleged will dated 20.05.1998. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent submits that though the Hon’ble Apex Court has categorically held that mutation of entries in revenue records cannot be altered or corrected on the basis of a Will, the authorities in the present case have relied upon certain other facts while passing the impugned order. In fact, the authorities have also observed that the name of the respondent was mutated under the deemed mutation category, and therefore, the revocation of the said mutation is not justified. 6. In the instant case, the facts are akin to those in the above-referred judgment (Supra 1). Therefore, the impugned order dated 05.03.2024 is contrary to the legal position settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the above said judgment. As the matter involves only a legal issue, this Court is not DR,J W.P.NO.16268 of 2024 inclined to go into the facts of the case. However, it is evident that the impugned order has been passed in favour of the unofficial respondent mainly based on the Will dated 05.08.2003 and the said mutation is contrary to the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court. 7. In view of the above discussion, the impugned order dated 05.03.2024 is liable to be set aside. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 05.03.2024 is hereby set aside. However, liberty is given to the 5th respondent to approach competent Civil Court to establish his rights, if any, based on the Will. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH Date: 02.12.2025 Dvs DR,J W.P.NO.16268 of 2024 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH 71 WRIT PETITION No.16268 of 2024 Dated: 02.12.2025 Dvs