IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY present JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITinM i^Q- 1-I7Q4 Qp PRADESH :: AMAR, MAY FIVE the honourable SRI 2025 Between: C ■ Garapati Narasimha Rao- S/6 Late Panr, District. Eluru -..Petitioner ^ND Guntur District. Velagapudi, Amaravatl, 2. The District Collector, Eluru 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer Eluru District. > 4 ’ District at Eluru. Jangareddygudem Revenue Division, 4. The Tahsiidar, Koyyalagudenr Mandal, Eluru District Telangana. '^'y^P^r. Hyderabad 6. Addagarte Ramakrishna, S/o. Nageswara Rao R/o age, Dwaraka Tirumala Mandal, Eluru District. ' 7. Addagarla Nageswara Rao No.A-503, Sri Sai Ram Towers I ■ • . Gundampalli S/o. Venkanna, Age 64 years, R/o. Flat Miyapur, Hyderabad, Telangana. ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents particularly 4th respondent in contemplating Jp mutate the name of 5th respondent in record of rights connected to my agricultural landed property admeasuring an extent of Ac.2.00 cents covered by S.No.19/1 situated at Gavaravaram Revenue Village of Koyyalagudem Mandal in Eluru District, without considering my objections-cum- representation dated 12.04.2025 as illegal, irregular, irrational violative of principles of natural justice and contrary to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Record of Rights in Lands and Pattadar Pass Book Act 1971 rules framed there under and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution Of India and consequently direct the 4th respondent not to mutate narrid of 5th respondent in record of rights connected to aforesaid agricultural land by considering my objection-cum- representation dated 12.04.2025/ ^ ^ may 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 4th respondent not to mutate name of 5“^ respondent in record of rights connected to agricultural landed property admeasuring extent of Ac.2.00 cents covered by S.No. 19/1 situated at Gavaravaram Revenue Village of Koyyalagudem Mandal in Eluru District, without considering my objection -cum- representation dated 12.04.2025, Pending disposal of the main Writ Petition. an Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. SITA RAM CHAPARLA Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following order: APHC010227542025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) HffiH [3329] MONDAY. THE FIFTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 11704/2025 Between: ...PETITIONER Garapati Narasimha Rao AND ...RESPONDENT{S) The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner; 1.S1TA RAM CHAPARLA Counsel for the Respondent(S); 1.GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following relief; to issue a writ, order or direction more particuiarly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of respondents particulariy 4"’ respondent in contemplating to mutate the name of 5 respondent in record of rights connected to my agricultural landed property admeasuring an extent of Ac.2.00 cents covered by S.No 19/1 situated at Gavaravaram Revenue Village of Koyyaiagudem Mandal in Eluru District, without considering my objections-cum-representa tion dated 12.04.2025 as illegal, irregular, irrational violative of principles of natural justice and contrary to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Record of Rights in Lands and Pattadar Pass Book Act 1971 rules framed there under and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the 4”' respondent not to mutate name of 5 respondent in record of rights connected to aforesaid agricultural land by considering my objection-cum-representation dated 12.04.2025 and to pass... T 2 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government 2. Pleader for Revenue for the respondents. During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner, without touching the merits of the case, requested this Court to issue a direction to the respondents not to dispossess/ evict the petitioner from his respective property without following due process of law. 3. 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue furnished the written instructions dated 04.05.2025, wherein it is stated as follows: "It is further submitted that subsequently, the petitioner herein filed a representation dated 12.04.2025 stating that he has filed a Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal vide S.R.No.21251/2015 before the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh and the same is pending for adjudication. However he has not filed any interim order or direction in the said Second Appeal by the Hon’ble High Court. It is further submitted that the allegations of the petitioner against this respondent are absolutely wrong and baseless. The petitioner herein and the unofficial respondents have a long civil feud in between them. The question of contemplating the name of 5 respondent for mutation of the subject land does not arise at this Juncture as the said application of the 5^^ respondent has been filed for sub-division application of Ac. 2.00 cents in R.S.no.19-1 only but not for mutation purpose. The said sub-division application will be enquired considering the Judgments of the Hon’ble Civil Court and after verification of the physical possession of the 5‘^ respondent; an appropriate order will be issued to the applicant/5‘^ respondent. A copy of such order shall be communicated to the petitioner herein for information. ’’ th 3 5. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents, it appears that the claim of the petitioner is that the respondents are taking steps for change of Revenue record in favour of 5^*^ respondent is only an apprehension. More so the 4^" respondent herein furnished written instructions extracted above categorically stated that they are not proceeding to change the Revenue Record/Entries as on today. Since, prolonged civil proceedings pending between the petitioner and unofficial respondents, if necessary as the orders of the Court, they would follow due process as contemplated under the principle of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971. Therefore, in view of the clear and categorical admission on the part of the respondents the claim of the petitioner is only an apprehension. However, if any changes/mutation referring in respect of subject properties, the respondent shall follow due process of law. as are per With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be 6. no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed. Sd/- M PRABHAKAR RAO ASSISTANT^REGISJRAR N OFFICER //TRUE COPY// SE To The Principal Secretary to the Government, State of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. The District Collector, Eluru District at Eluru. 1. / Jangareddygudem Revenue Division, 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer Eluru District. 4. The Tahsildar, Koyyalagudem Mandal, Eluru District. 5. One CC to Sri. Sita Ram Chaparla Advocate [OPUC] GP For Revenue .High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 6. Two CCS to 7. Three CD Copies GSC HIGH COURT DATED;05/05/2025 ORDER WP.No.11704 of 2025 ^ 0 7 JUL 2025 K '^fsSijrrentSe^jIlx''^ DISPOSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS \