, IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 9936 OF 2025 Between; 1. Singupilla Jyothi, W/o. Late Suryanarayana, aged about 75 years, Occ Household, R/o. Door No. 59-4-7/3, Nagarala Street, Malkapuram, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh. 2. Singupilla Balaji, S/o. Late Suryanarayana, aged about 57 years, Occ Private Employee, R/o. Door No. 59-4-7/3, Nagarala Street, Malkapuram, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh. 3. Singupilla Lakshmana Venkata Suryanarayana, S/o. Late Suryanarayana, aged about 49 years, Occ Private Employee, R/o. Door No. 59-4-7/3, Nagarala Street, Malkapuram, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh. ...Petitioners AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, A.P. Secretariat. Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. The District Collector, Vizianagaram District, Vizianagaram. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram. 4. The Tahsildar, Vizianagaram Mandal, Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram District. 5. The Chairman, Visakhapatnam Metropolitan Region Development Authority, VURDA Complex, Floor, Vuda Complex, Siripuram Circle Siripuram, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh 530 003. 6. Sri Akshinthala Ravi Kumar, S/o. Late Rayapu Setty, Aged about 54 years, R/o. Chinna Pathivada Vilalge, H/o. Pathivada, Pusapatirega Mandal, Vizianagaram District. 7. Sri Pathivada Ramu, S/o. Late Ramu Naidu, aged about 49 years, R/o. Chinna Pathivada Vilalge, H/o. Pathivada, Pusapatirega Mandal Vizianagaram District. 8. Smt. Mypada Ramayyamma, W/o. Late Pydithalli, Aged about 69 years Occ Household, R/o. Chinna Pathivada Vilalge, H/o. Pathivada Pusapatirega Mandal, Vizianagaram District. / / /' / •9^.. Smt. Valireddi Narayanamma, W/o. Appala Naidu, Aged about 75 ' years, Occ Household, R/o. Chinna Pathivada Vilalge, H/o. Pathivada, Pusapatirega Mandal, Vizianagaram District. Sri Pathivada Pydi Naidu, S/o. Late Ramu Naidu, Aged about 75 years, R/o. Chinna Pathivada Village, H/o. Pathivada, Pusapatirega Mandal, Vizianagaram District. 10. ...Respondents 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 to issue a Writ, order or direction, more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring that the high handed action of the respondent 6 to 10 herein in trying to obtain the Revenue Records after mutating their names in respect of the land admeasuring an extent of Ac.2.38 cents, out of total extent of Ac.3.00 in Sy. Nos. Nos. 205/3, 4, 5, 7, 11 to 15, situated at Pathivada Village, Pusapatirega Mandal, Vizianagaram District for conversion of the said land from Agriculture to Non-Agriculture for the purpose of obtain laying house plots, without authority power or right of whatsoever regarding the said land, as illegal, improper, arbitrary, unjust, contrary to law, being violative of principles of natural justice, violative of the provisions of the Constitution of India, unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents 2 to 5, not to mutate the names of the respondents 6 to 9 or grant any appropriate permission for conversion of the land from agricultural to non-agricultural, in respect of the above said land. lA 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 to direct the respondents 2 to 5 not to mutate the names of the respondents 6 to 9 or grant any appropriate permission for conversion of the land from agricultural to non-agricultural, in respect of the land to an extent of Ac.3.00 Sy.Nos. 205/3, 4, 5, 7, 11 to 15, situated at pathivada Village, Pusapatirega Mandal, Vizianagaram District. / / / Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI BONU RAMA SHANKAR RAO Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 4: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following order: APHC010136862025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 9936/2025 Between: Singupilla Jyothi and Others ...PETITIONER{S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1.BONU RAMA SHANKAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent{S): 1.GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: 2 NV,J W.P.NO.9936OF2025 % THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 9936/2025 ORDER: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India seeking the following reliefs:- “...to issue a Writ order or direction more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that the high handed action of the respondent 6 to 10 herein in trying to obtain the Revenue Records after mutating their names in respect of the land admeasuring an extent of Ac. 2-38 cents, out of total extent of Ac.3-00 in Sy.Nos.205/3, 4, 5, 1, 11 to 15 situated at Pathivada Village, Pusapatirega Mandal, Vizianagaram District for conversion of the said land from Agriculture to Non-Agriculture for the purpose of obtain laying house plots, without authority power or right of whatsoever regarding the said land, as illegal. Improper, arbitrary, unjust, contrary to law, being violative of principles of natural justice, violative of the provisions of the Constitution of India, unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents 2 to 5, not to mutate the names of the respondents 6 to 9 or grant any appropriate permission for conversion of the land from agricultural to non-agricultural In respect of the above said land, and pass...” Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government 2. Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents. The claim of the petitioners is that they are the agreement holders for an extent of Ac.2-38 cents out of total extent of Ac.3-00 cents in Sy.No.205/3, 4, 5, 7, 11 to 15, situated at Pathivada Village, Pusapatirega Mandal, Vizianagaram District, for which, they had instituted a suit O.S.No.251 of 2011 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram, seeking a relief of specific performance against the respondent Nos.6 to 10, which is pending for consideration. Whereas, in the said suit, the Court below was pleased to pass an interim order of “Status-Quo” on 26.07.2011. Further the claim of the 3. / 3 W.P.N0.9936 OF 2025 petitioners is that though the Court below granted an order of “Status Quo”, the respondent is trying to mutate the names of the respondent Nos.6 to 10 in the revenue records as pattadars. Such action by the 4'^ respondent is alleged to be illegal, arbitrary and liable to be set-aside. 4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents submits that there is a civil dispute between the petitioners and the respondent Nos. 6 to 10 in respect of the subject property and the suit is pending between them. The petitioners herein are only the agreement holders, they do not possess any right, whatsoever against the subject property. In view of the pending suit, the 4'*^ respondent is not taking any steps as alleged by the petitioners and it is only the apprehension of the petitioners. 5. Heard submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents and on perusal of the material placed on record. The fact remains that the petitioners herein are agreement holders with respect of the subject land, and a suit is pending for specific performance of the agreement. It is settled law that agreement holders do not possess any rights over the subject property till their rights are crystallized by way of a judgment and decree in O.S.No.251 of 2011. Although, the suit is pending since 2011, the same was not decreed so far, and no right whatsoever, was created in favour of the petitioners. Without having any rights whatsoever, under the guise of an I"' 4 NVJ W.P.N0.9936 OF 2025 agreement of sale the agreement holders cannot be permitted to file Writ Petition and sought for Writ of Mandamus. Moreover, the unofficial respondent Nos.6 to 10 are still the absolute owners and possessors of the properties, as such, they are entitled to continue as pattadars and also get it mutated as per the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971. Admittedly, there is an interim order of status- Quo granted in the aforesaid suit with reference to possession of the property only. But, it is contended by official respondents that in view of the said order, they are not taking any steps to mutate the names of unofficial respondents. The Writ Petition is nothing but an abuse of process of law on part of the petitioners. The Writ Petition is liable to dismissed in view of the reasons stated above. can Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.5000/- to • > Secretary, Legaf Services Authority, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, within a period of one (01) month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition, shall stand closed. Sd/- N NAGAMMA ASSISTA^REGISTRAR SECTON OFFICER 1 //TRUE COPY// To, 1. The Secretary, Legal Services Authority, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. 2. One CC to Sri Bonu Rama Shankar Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 4. Two CD Copies RAM J, HIGH COURT DATED:22/04/2025 ORDER WP.No.9936 of 2025 DISMISSING THE WP WITH COSTS