IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH::AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 25994 OF 2022 Between: Dadi Venkata Adi Nageswara Rao, S/o D. Satyanarayana, Aged about 47 years, Resident of House No 19-2-11, Munasabu gari Street, Gavarapalem, Anakapalli, Anakapalli District. ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh,,Represented by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Sedretdriat Building, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Andhra Pradesh. 2. District Collector, Anakapalli District. 3. Joint Collector, Anakapalli. 4. Revenue Divisional Officer and Appellate Authority, Anakapalli, ^ Anakapalli District. 1 5. Tahsildar, Munagapaka Mandal, Anakapalli District. 6. Dadi Srinivas Rao, S/o Satyanarayana, Aged about 52 years. Resident of Door No. 15-10-9, Ground Floor, Vegi Gowrish Street, Gavarapalem, Anakapalli, Anakapalli District. ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of tbe Constitution of India is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue any appropriate Writ, Order or Direction preferably a Writ in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the 4th respondent in entertaining the Appeal filed by the 6th respondent in proceedings Rc. No. 1199/2022/p afi^sh which was earlier decided by the 2 ■ 4111 respondent in Proceedings D.Dis No. 202/2015 dated 15.12.2016 for the lands oi an extent of 0.28 cents situated in Survey No. 91/2A Ummalada Village, Munagapaka Mandal, Anakapalli District as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdictidn: ahd-viblative of Article 14 and 300 A of the Constitution of India and set asidd the same and consequently direct the respondents 2 to 5 not to delete the name of the petitioner in online record including Pattadah passbooks and Title deeds for the revenue subject land lA NO: 1 OFJ022 Petition under Section ^ T51i CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay atPfuftfier proceedings in the Appeal filed by the 6th respondent before the''4th f'espond8nt in cancellation of Pattadar Pass Books and Title Deeds for the land or extent of 0.28 cents situated^fn Survey No. 91/2A Ummalada Village, Munagapaka Mandal, Anakapalli-District, pending disposal of the Writ petition Do, Mo 1 -1 \G. I'lV.y. I I 99 /onoo /D for an lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Between: Joint Collector, Anakapalli ... Petitioner/Respondent AND 1. Dadi Venkata Adi Nageswafa Rao, S/o D. Satyanarayana, Aged about 47 years. Resident of House No 19-2-11 Gavarapalem, Anakapalli, Anakapalli District. Munasabu gari Street, ...Respondent/Petitioner Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Andhra Pradlsh"^^^^*’ Building, Velagapudi, Amaravati, 3. District Collector, Anakapalli District. 4. Revenue Divisional Officer and Appellate Authority, Anakapalli, Anakapalli District. 5. Tahsildar, Munagapaka Mandal, Anakapalli District. 6. Dadi Srinivas Rao, S/o Satyanarayana, Aged about 52 years. Resident of Door No. 15-10-9, Ground’Floor, Vegi Gowrish Street, Gavarapalem, Anakapalli, Anakapalli DistrjQt. .. .Respondents/Respondents Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim order dated 18.08.2022 in WP No. 25994 of 2022 and to dismiss the Writ Petition lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Between: Revenue Divisional Officer and Appellate Authority, Anakapalli, Anakapalli District. ... Petitioner/Respondent AND 1. Dadi Venkata Adi Nageswara.Rgo, S/o D. Satyanarayana, Aged about 47 years. Resident of House No 19-2-11, Munasabu gari Street, Gavarapalem, Anakapalli, Anakapalli District ...Respondent/Petitioner 2. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Building, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Andhra Pradesh. 3. District Collector, Anakapalli District. 4. Joint Collector, Anakapalli. 5. Tahsildar, Munagapaka Mandal, Anakapalli District. 6. Dadi Srinivas Rao, S/o Satyanarayana, Aged about 52 years. Resident of Door No. 15-10-9, Ground Floor, Vegi Gowrish Street, Gavarapalem, Anakapalli, Anakapalli District.- ... Respondents/Respondents (R2 to R6 are not necessary parties in this petition) Petition under Section ;151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to. vacate,-the interim order dated 18.08.2022 in WP.No.25994 of 2022 and dismiss the writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: Sftr Y SUDHAKAR i . Counsel for the Respondents Nd.1 to 5: Two CCs to GP FOR FOR revenue Counsel for the Respondent No.6: SRI G NAGESWAR RAO The Court made the following: Order i T t- ■ ‘ ‘r-- O- % 1 APHC010423662022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3505] WEDNESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 25994/2022 Between: ...PETITIONER Dadi Venkata Adi Nageswara Rao, AND ...RESPONDENT{S) The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.YSUDHAKAR Counsel for the Respondent{S): 1.GP FOR REVENUE 2.G L NAGESWAR RAO The Court made the following: ^ / 2 / / ORDER: The present writ petition is filed to declare the action 1. th of the 4**" respondent in entertaining the appeal filed by the 6 respondent in proceedings Rc.No. 1199/2022/D afresh, which was respondent in proceeding D.Dis th earlier decided by the 4 No.202/2015 dated 15.12.2016 in respect of lands to an extent of Ac.0.28 cents situated in Sy.No.91/2A of Ummalada Village, Munagapaka Mandal, Anakapalli District, as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. The petitioner claims that he is the absolute owner and possessor of land admeasuring an extent of Ac.0-28 cents in Sy.No.91/2A of Ummalada Village, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. It is further case of the petitioner that originally, the said land was purchased by his mother, Smt.Dadi Paradesamma, by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 15.04.1987, vide document No.1111/87, from one Sri.Kandregula Venkata Ramana and others. It is further stated that since the date of purchase, his mother was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. The petitioner further contends that his mother executed a Will dated 16.03.2008, whereby and whereunder she bequeathed the aforementioned property in his 2. favour. Later, she died on 05.09.2011. It petitioner that after demise of his application to the 5‘' respondent seeking is further case of the mother, the petitioner made an to mutate his name in revenue records and to issue pattadar passbooks In turn, the 5'*^ respondent conducted and title deeds. an enquiry and submitted a report dated 20.06.2015. It is further case of the petitioner that based on the said report, the revenue records, and he and title deeds. It is further case of the spondent, who is petitioner’s name was mutated i was also issued pattadhar passbooks petitioner that 6*^ in rex I w none other than the b.rother of the petitioner, mutation effected in favour of the 5(5) of the ROR Act after coming to know about the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 1971, before the 4"^ passbooks and title deeds. The said petitioner, and eventually, the 4^^ appeal by order dated 15.12.2016 directed both the petitioner and respondent, for cancellation of pattadhar appeal was contested by the respondent disposed of the whereby and whereunder the 6*^ respondent herein approach the competent civil Court for adjudication to of their rights over the lands in dispute. The order dated the 4*^ 15.12.2016 passed by respondent attained finality, inasmuch as neither the petitioner nor the 6*^ respondent preferred revision against the 4 th said order. It is further case of the petitioner that the 6 respondent again approached the 4*'^ respondent for cancellation of pattadhar passbooks issued in his favour. Pursuant to which, th respondent issued notice dated 31.05.2022 to the the 4 petitioner asking him to appear in person on 18.06.2022 with all the records in respect of his claim over the lands in dispute. The said notice is questioned in the present writ petition on the ground that the Revenue Divisional Officer/4*^ respondent does not have any jurisdiction, as the very same authority had already passed order over the subject lands on 15.12.2016. On the other hand, the 4‘*^ respondent filed counter 3. affidavit admitting the fact that the name of the petitioner was mutated in the revenue records based on the Will submitted by him after conducting an enquiry. It is also admitted in the counter affidavit that the 6*'^ respondent filed an appeal before the 4 th respondent, questioning the issuance of pattadhar passbooks in favour of the petitioner and eventually the 4**^ respondent passed an order dated 15.12.2016 directing the parties to approach competent Civil Court for redressal of their rights. Having admitted the factum of passing an order on 15.12.2016 in the appeal, the 4**^ respondent stated in the counter affidavit that on the application filed by the was issued asking the parties to attend stated that as there respondent, without verifying the was issued and subsequent to Court in the present writ petition, respondent, the impugned notice for enquiry. It is further was a change of officer in the office of the records, the impugned notice passing of interim order by this no action was initiated. 4. No counter affidavit is filed by the 6“ respondent. Heard learned Government Pleader for Revenue 5. counsel for the petitioner, learned and learned counsel for the 6‘^ respondent. 6. Perused material available It is not in dispute that the on record. 7. name of the petitioner mutated in the revenue records by the 5'^ respondent based Will submitted by him. It is also not i was on in dispute that the 6^'^ respondent filed an appeal questioning the i passbooks in favour of the disposed of by the 4^*" whereunder directed the approach the competent Civil Court over the lands in dispute. The said issuance of pattadhar petitioner, and the said appeal was respondent vide dated 15.12.2016 petitioner and the 6*^^ respondent to so as to agitate their rights order was passed by the 4*'^ respondent attained finality, as neither the petitioner nor the 6* 6 respondent filed revision against the said order. On perusal of the counter affidavit filed by the 4*'" respondent, it is clear that the impugned notice was issued based on a representation made by the 6*'" respondent. The 4*'' respondent has absolutely jurisdiction to issue the impugned notice, inasmuch as he has already decided the appeal filed by the 6*^ respondent and the said order attained finality. Apart from the same, once the issue was decided by the 4*^ respondent, the same cannot be reopened inasmuch as, there is no power of review conferred on him under Act 26 of 1971. In the absence of any such power, the issuance of impugned notice is without jurisdiction. Further, instead of approaching the Civil Court as per the orders of the 4**^ respondent, the respondent for the reasons best known to him again approached the very same authority, who already decided the appeal between the parties. Though in the counter affidavit, it is stated that the said notice was issued without verifying the records, the 4 respondent cannot justify his action in issuing the notice under challenge. no 8. In view of the same, the impugned notice dated 31.05.2022 issued by the 4‘^ respondent is without jurisdiction, and accordingly, the same is set aside. 'i 7 I 9. During the course of hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court that, pending the writ petition, the 5^*^ respondent mutated the name of the 6*^ respondent in the revenue records for extent of Ac.0.127 cents. It is pertinent to mention that an pursuant to the impugned notice dated 31.05.2022, admittedly no order was passed by the 4**" respondent. Therefore, the action of the 5*^ respondent in mutating the name of the 6**^ respondent in the revenue records in respect of land to an extent of Ac.0.127 cents is illegal, and accordingly the same is set aside. .Further, the 5'^' respondent is directed to mutate the name of the petitioner in respect of land admeasuring an extent of Ac.0.28 cents. It is needless to mention that, the parties are at liberty to approach the Civil Court, if they are so advised. 10. With the above directions, the present Writ Petition i: allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand IS closed. Sd/- B CHITTI JOSEPH ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I O '' SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, Revenue 1. The Principal Secretary, State of Andhra Pradesh, Department, Secretariat Building, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Andhra Pradesh. 2. District Collector, Anakapalli District. 3. Joint Collector, Anakapalli. 4. Revenue Divisional Officer and Appellate Authority, Anakapalli Anakapalli District. Tahsildar, Munagapaka Mandal, Anakapalli District. One CC to SRI Y SUDHAKAR Advocate [OPUC] Two CCS to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] One CC to SRI G NAGESWAR RAO, Advocate [OPUC] Three CD Copies 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. gsg T I HIGH COURT DATED: 09/04/2025 ORDER % 2SSFP2C25 WP.No.25994 of 2022 #"Ci rri. ALLOWING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS