APHC010595502025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3529] MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT APPEAL NO: 1184/2025 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent set aside the judgment/order dated 20.8.2025 W.P.NO 21758 OF 2025 and pass such other order or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and in the interests of justice, else the Appellants may suffer perpetual loss and Injury. Between: 1. KAMMA THUKARAM, S/O K. NARSAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, 104-BASAPURAM, ADONI MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 2. KAMMA CHANDRAPPA, S/O NARASAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, NO. 104, BASAPURAM ADONI MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRI SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI VILLAGE, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KURNOOL DISTRICT, COLLECTORATE, KURNOOL CITY AND DISTRICT. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, O/O RDO ADONI REVENUE DIVISION, O/O RDO ADONI, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHASHILDAR, ADONI MANDAL, O/O THE TAHASHILDAR, ADONI, KURNOOL DISTRICT. . RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 2 RRR,J & TCDS,J W.A.No.1184 of 2025 5. SMT C SHARADA, W/O LATE C. YELLAPPA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O HO.NO. 6/306/62/3C, TGL COLONY, ADONI, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 6. CHILLALE RAJESH, S/O LATE C. YELLAPPA AGED 49 YEARS, R/O FLAT NO. 104, A-BLOCK, JAIHIND VALLEY APARTMENTS, BESIDE DELHI SCHOOL OF EXCELLENCE, NEAR POST OFFICE, MANIKONDA , HYDERABAD, TELANGANA 500089 7. CHILLELA RAMESH, S/O LATE C. YELLAPPA AGED 47 YEARS, R/O FLAT NO. 104, A-BLOCK, JAIHIND VALLEY APARTMENTS, BESIDE DELHI SCHOOL OF EXCELLENCE, NEAR POST OFFICE, MANIKONDA , HYDERABAD, TELANGANA 500089 8. CHILLALE SATISH KUMAR, S/O LATE C.YELLAPPA R/O HO.NO. 6/306/62/3C, TGL COLONY, ADONI, KURNOOL 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 pleased to dispense with the filing of certified copy of the judgement to prefer an appeal against the order dated: 20.8.2025 in W.P.NO: 21758 of 2025 and pass 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 pleased to grant to leave to the petitioners to prefer an appeal against the order dated: 20.8.2025 in W.P.NO: 21758 of 2025 and pass IA NO: 3 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 pleased to suspend the common order dated: 20.08.2025 in W.P.NO: 21758 of 2025 pending disposal of the writ appeal and pass Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. KASA JAGANMOHAN REDDY 3 RRR,J & TCDS,J W.A.No.1184 of 2025 Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. VARUN BYREDDY 2. GP FOR REVENUE 4 RRR,J & TCDS,J W.A.No.1184 of 2025 The Court made the following Judgment: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) The appellants herein, claim ownership over an extent of Ac.25-25 cents, in Sy.No.36 of Kallubavi Village, Adoni Mandal, Kurnool District. This land is said to have been mortgaged and was the subject of a Suit bearing O.S.No.275 of 1979 filed, before the learned Principal District Munsif Judge, Adoni, by a Firm namely M/s. C. Narayanappa. The Suit ended in a Judgment and Decree and the aforesaid property came to be auctioned by the Court. Sri C. Yellappa, one of the partners of M/s. C. Narayanappa, had participated in the auction and was declared as the auction purchaser, in relation to the aforesaid land. A certificate of sale, dated 15.09.1993, was also issued in favour of Sri C. Yellappa. 2. The respondents 5 to 8 herein, who are the wife and children of Sri C. Yellappa, who had passed away, approached the Tahsildar, Adoni Mandal, by way of applications for mutation of the revenue records, in relation to the aforesaid land, in their favour. These applications bearing Nos.MUT240316001077 & MUT240316001230, dated 16.03.2024, were not disposed of. Aggrieved by the said non-disposal of these applications, the respondents 5 to 8, approached this Court, by way of W.P.No.21758 of 2025, seeking a direction to the Tahsildar, Adoni Mandal, to dispose of the said applications. A learned Single Judge of this Court, by a Judgment, dated 20.08.2025, had disposed of this Writ Petition, with a direction to the Tahsildar, to consider the said applications thoroughly and to issue orders 5 RRR,J & TCDS,J W.A.No.1184 of 2025 accordingly and to communicate the same to the respondents 5 to 8 within a period of six (06) weeks from the date of receipt of the learned Single Judge’s Order. 3. The appellants herein being aggrieved by the said Judgment, have approached this Court, by way of the present Writ Appeal, after seeking leave of this Court. 4. The case of the appellants is that, their father was the owner of the said land, which had been put up for Court Auction. It is contended that, the said Court Auction was an invalid process, which does not confer any title in favour of late Sri C. Yellappa, the husband of the 5th respondent and the father of the respondents 6 to 8. It is further contended that, Sri C. Yellappa, who was a partner in M/s. C. Narayanappa, would have to be treated as a decree holder and he could not have participated in the auction without specific leave from the Court. It is stated that, there is no mention of any such leave being given, in the sale certificate. It is submitted that, the father of the appellants, and subsequently, the appellants, remained in undisturbed possession, of the said land and no steps were taken for taking possession of the land. It is also contended that, the Tahsildar, Adoni Mandal, would not be competent to go into these questions, of validity of the sale process conducted by the Court. It is further contended that, such complicated questions of law and facts, cannot be determined by the Tahsildar, and it would only be the Civil Court under Section 8 (2) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books 6 RRR,J & TCDS,J W.A.No.1184 of 2025 Act, 1971 (herein referred to as the R.O.R. Act), that would be competent to decide such issues. 5. Sri Varun Byreddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 5 to 8, would contend that, the procedure set out under the R.O.R. Act is for the persons, claiming title, to move the Tahsildar for mutation of the revenue records, under Section 4 & Section 5 of the R.O.R. Act. Upon such application being made, it would be open to the Tahsildar to either accept the said application and to carry out necessary mutation of the revenue records or to refuse the said mutation either on the ground of no title being made out or on the ground that, complicated questions of fact and law are required to be decided. He would also submit that, the starting point for the determination of the rights of the respondents 5 to 8, would be the Tahsildar and a direction by this Court, to consider the application of the respondents 5 to 8, cannot be denied. The learned counsel would also submit that, the appellants have approached this Court, by way of mere apprehension that, the Tahsildar would act only in one manner and not consider the question of whether such proceedings should not be taken up or whether the parties should be relegated to the Civil Court. 6. In the normal course, we would agree with the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 5 to 8. However, in the present case, the question, of whether the proceedings have been properly conducted by the Executing Court, would have to be looked into for the purpose of deciding 7 RRR,J & TCDS,J W.A.No.1184 of 2025 whether there should be mutation of the revenue record. The issue of whether the auction conducted by the Executing Court, in favour of Sri C. Yellappa, was after appropriate permission had been given to Sri C. Yellappa as a decree holder; the question of whether Sri C. Yellappa, who is a partner of the decree holder can be treated as decree holder, who requires such permission; whether such possession of the land had been handed over to Sri C. Yellappa, by way of appropriate proceedings, by the Court and aspects related to these issues would have to be gone into by the Tahsildar. Such issues, by any stretch of imagination, cannot be decided by the Tahsildar, and it would only be a Civil Court which can go into such questions. 7. In these circumstances, directing the Tahsildar to examine these issues, would not in any manner assist the case of the respondents 5 to 8. 8. Accordingly, this Writ Appeal is allowed, setting aside the directions of the learned Single Judge, dated 20.08.2025, leaving it open to the respondents 5 to 8, to agitate their rights, before an appropriate Forum, in accordance with Law. Upon a decision arising, out of a suit or an application moved by the respondents 5 to 8, it would be open to the respondents 5 to 8 to seek necessary mutation of the revenue records before the Tahsildar. 9. It is also made clear that, this Court has not gone into the respective rights and claims of the parties and such questions are left open for decision by the appropriate Forum, without being influenced in any manner, by any finding given, by this Court. 8 RRR,J & TCDS,J W.A.No.1184 of 2025 There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J ________________ T.C.D. SEKHAR, J Date:24.11.2025 KPV 9 RRR,J & TCDS,J W.A.No.1184 of 2025 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT APPEAL No.1184 of 2025 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) 24.11.2025 KPV