APHC010518662025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3559] MONDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA WRIT APPEAL NO: 1113/2025 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent begs to present the above Writ Appeal questioning the order dated. 16-9-2025 passed in W.P.No.95 of 2025 by the learned single Judge Between: 1. M V SRIDHAR, S/O.M.S.VENKATESH GUPTA, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.14-568, R.V.M STREET, KUPPAM, CHITTOOR DISTRICT ...APPELLANT AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT BUILDING, VELGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CHITTOOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KUPPAM, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, 4. THE TAHSILDAR, , KUPPAM, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, 5. THE SUBREGISTRAR, KUPPAM, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, 6. THE MANDAL SURVEYOR, KUPPAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT 7. M A RAVI SHANKAR, S/O.M, S.ADINARAYANA SETTY, R/O. UNIQUE GRAPHICS SHOP, RADHAAKRISHNA ROAD, KUPPAM 2 RRR,J & SS,J W.A.No.1113 of 2025 TOWH, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 It is submitted that the Certified copies of calendar and judgment dated 16-9- 2025 passed in WP No. 95 of 2025 on the file of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh is unavailable with the petitioner. The petitioner secured the said copies through Might Court Website. As there is urgency in the matter, the copies of the judgments in the courts below available in High Court website, are being filed instead of certified copies. The certified copies will be filed as soon as it is received. The non-filing of the certified copies are neither wilful nor wanton IA NO: 2 OF 2025 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 may be pleased to dispense with the filing of the certified copies judgment dated 16-9-2025 passed in WP No. 95 of 2025 on the file of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh and pass any order or orders which the Hon’ble court may deem expedient in the facts and circumstances of the case Counsel for the Appellant: 1. KODE RAMESH BABU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. D V N ACHARYA 3. GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS 3 RRR,J & SS,J W.A.No.1113 of 2025 The Court made the following Judgment: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) An extent of Ac.1-22 cents of land in Sy.No.66/6 of Kuppam Urban, Kuppam Mandal, Chittoor District was mutated in favour of the 7th respondent, in the year, 2024. The appellant herein, who is the first cousin of the 7th respondent, has challenged the said mutation, on the ground that, the said mutation was carried out by the Tahsildar, without giving a notice to the appellant and that, the appellant has a right and share in the said property, which is getting affected by virtue of this mutation. 2. A Writ Petition bearing No.95 of 2025, filed by the appellant, in this regard, came to be dismissed, by a learned Single Judge of this Court, by an Order, dated 16.09.2025. 3. Aggrieved by the said Order of Dismissal, the appellant has approached this Court, by way of the present Writ Appeal. 4. The case of the appellant is that, this property belonged to his grandfather namely Sri M. Suryanarayana Setty. His grandfather had three sons namely Sri M. S. Govindaraju Setty, Sri M. S. Adinarayana Setty and Sri M. S. Venkatesh Gupta. The appellant is the son of Sri M. S. Venkatesh Gupta, while the 7th respondent is the son of Sri M. S. Adinarayana Setty. 5. The case of the appellant is that this property continued to be the Joint Family Property of the Hindu Undivided Family of Sri M. Suryanarayana Setty and that, the name of the 7th respondent could not have been included, by 4 RRR,J & SS,J W.A.No.1113 of 2025 way of mutation, in the Revenue Records, as the owner of this land. In any event, the said mutation could not have been carried out without notice being given to all the members of the family. 6. The 7th respondent contended that, there was an oral partition, in the family by virtue of which his father had been allotted this land and that, he succeeded the land upon the demise of his father. The 7th respondent submits that, on account of the fact that, the property would devolve only on the children of Sri M. S. Adinarayana Setty, there can be no requirement of notice being issued to the appellant. 7. The 7th respondent would also submit that, his sister had filed a Suit for partition of the properties of his father and the same has ended in a compromise under which the 7th respondent has become the owner of the land. The learned Single Judge, on the basis of the said fact, had held that, it would be appropriate to relegate the parties to a Civil Court to go into all these questions of fact and dismissed the Writ Petition. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that, the learned Single Judge ought not to have dismissed the Writ Petition without going into the question of the existence of an oral partition of the family property, and ought to have directed the Tahsildar to consider any objections that would be filed by the appellant. 9. As rightly observed by the learned Single Judge, the question of whether there was an oral partition of the family property or not and whether 5 RRR,J & SS,J W.A.No.1113 of 2025 the mutation of the revenue records in favour of the father of the 7th respondent in the year, 1996, is on the ground of ownership being conferred on the father of the 7th respondent, in the year, 1996 itself are questions of fact, which cannot be gone into by this Court. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the 7th respondent has now placed before us O.S.No.25 of 2025, said to have been filed before the learned Civil Judge, Kuppam (Senior Division), by the appellant herein, seeking a declaration of ownership over the said land and other reliefs. 11. In view of the fact that an alternative remedy has already been invoked by the appellant, it would only be appropriate to relegate the appellant and the 7th respondent to the learned Civil Judge, Kuppam (Senior Division), in O.S.No.25 of 2025, for ascertaining the rights of these persons over the said land. 12. Accordingly, this Writ Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J ______________________ SUBHENDU SAMANTA, J Date:03.11.2025 KPV 6 RRR,J & SS,J W.A.No.1113 of 2025 155 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA WRIT APPEAL No:1113 of 2025 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) 03.11.2025 KPV