APHC010032252022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 2289/2022 Between: G.sreenivasulu ...PETITIONER AND State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V ESWARAIAH CHOWDARY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following order: Questioning the endorsements issued by Tahsildar vide Rc.B.342/2021 dated 13.11.2021, 06.12.2021, 05.01.2022 rejecting the petitioner’s application for mutation of his name in revenue records relating to subject property admeasuring Ac.0.20 cents in Sy.No.37-4, Ac.0.10 cents in Sy.No.39-1 situated at Marlamudi Jangalapalli village fields, Chittamuru Mandal, SPSR Nellore, the present writ petition is filed. 2. Heard Sri V.Eswariah Chowdary, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri J.Krishna Praneeth, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit contended that, the petitioner made an application to the tahsildar for mutation of his name in the revenue records with respect to subject property and the same was rejected by the tahsildar under impugned endorsements, without giving any valid reasons and contrary to the provisions of A.P.Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971. If such endorsements are allowed to subsist, it affects the rights of the petitioner. As such prayed to pass appropriate orders protecting the interest of the petitioner. 4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue submitted that, as against the rejection orders, the petitioner has to file an appeal before the RDO by virtue of Section 5(5) of the Act, 1971 and cannot straight away file the present writ petition. Therefore, the petitioner has not made out any case warranting the interference of this Court, as such prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 5. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by both the learned counsel. 6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has made an application to the tahsildar for mutation of his name in revenue records with respect to subject property. But the said application was rejected by the tahsildar vide endorsements Rc.B.342/2021 dated 13.11.2021, 06.12.2021, 05.01.2022 respectively, which were questioned before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. No valid points have been raised by the petitioner to by-pass the right of appeal. As rightly contended by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, when a right of appeal is envisaged under the Act, 1971, writ petition is not maintainable. In view of the said circumstances, as the petitioner has not raised any valid grounds warranting the interference of this Court, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition with the following direction: The petitioner is at liberty to approach the appellate authority for redressal of his grievance, in accordance with law. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI BRS