APHC010781472018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3209] TUESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA WRIT PETITION NO: 37845/2018 Between: 1. RUPANAGUDI SUDHAKAR REDDY, S/O CHANDRASEKHAR REDDY AGED ABOUT 59YRS, OCC. AGRICULTURE R/O R.S.ROAD, NANDYAL KURNOOL DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE TAHSILDAR, GOSPADU MANDAL KURNOOL DISTRICT 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, NANDYAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KURNOOL 4. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 5. RUPANAGUDI RAMASUBBA REDDY, S/O RAJASEKHAR REDDY AGED ABOUT 29YRS, R/O H.NO. 29-332-30-A5 SUDDALAPETA, TEKKE NANDYAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. Mr. P Nagendra Reddy represented by Mr. K Sazid Counsel for the Respondents: 1. GP for Revenue (AP) NJS,J W.P No.37845 of 2018 2 The Court made the following Order: Heard Mr. K Sazid, learned counsel, representing the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K Arjun Chowdary, learned Assistant Government Pleader representing the respondent Nos.1 to 4. 2. The present writ petition is filed seeking to declare the action of the respondent No.1 in mutating the name of the respondent No.5 in the revenue records in respect of the subject matter land without issuing notice to the interested persons and legal heirs as illegal, arbitrary, etc., and contrary to Section 5(3) of A.P. Rights in Lands and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 and for the consequential directions. 3. The learned counsel representing the learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that the petitioner and his father one Mr. Chandrasekhar Reddy partitioned the ancestral properties vide partition deed dated 10.02.1990 and the land of an extent of Ac.4.12 cents in Survey No.269/A has been allotted to the petitioner’s share and an extent of Ac.3.25 cents in Survey No.201/2 has been allotted towards share of the petitioner’s father for limited rights of enjoyment during his life time, without any right to alienate the said property. He further submits that the respondent No.5 fraudulently created a registered sale deed without paying any sale consideration in respect of the house which is allotted to the petitioner’s father and further that a suit in O.S No.195/2010 was filed for cancellation of the sale deed and the same is pending before the learned Junior Civil Judge, Allagadda. 4. He also submits that though the respondent No.5 is aware of the partition deed, in a fraudulent manner the respondent No.5 obtained a sale deed dated 11.01.2018 in respect of the subject matter properties i.e., Ac.4.12 cents in Survey No.269/A and Ac.3.25 cents in Survey No.201/2 of Vontivelagala Village, Gospadu Mandal, Kurnool District and got mutated his name in the revenue records. NJS,J W.P No.37845 of 2018 3 5. The respondent No.1 without following the procedure contemplated under Section 5(3) of the A.P. Rights in Lands and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 and much less without issuing notice to the petitioner, who is an interested person in respect of the subject matter properties, mutated the name of the respondent No.5 and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the relief sought for, in the writ petition. 6. On the other hand, Mr. K Arjun Chowdary, learned Assistant Government Pleader, made submissions with reference to the averments made in the counter-affidavit dated 26.10.2018 filed by the respondent No.1. Drawing the attention of this Court to the relevant averments in paragraph Nos.7 and 8, he submits that the then Tahsildar had mutated the name of the respondent No.5 in the revenue records on the basis of a registered sale deed executed by the father of the petitioner in favor of the respondent No.5. He also submits that the petitioner’s father attended the mutation enquiry proceedings and as per his statement dated 02.02.2018, which is enclosed to the counter-affidavit, it is discernible that in view of the registered sale deed dated 11.01.2018, the father of the petitioner had no objection for mutating the name of the respondent No.5 by deleting his name and for issuance of pattadar passbooks. He also submits that if the petitioner is disputing the averments made in the counter-affidavit and the material enclosed to it, appropriate reply-affidavit should have been filed and in the absence of the same, it shall be treated that the averments made in the counter-affidavit are admitted. Be that as it may. 7. He submits that the petitioner instead of working out his remedies in terms of the provisions of the A.P. Rights in Lands and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971, has filed the present writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 8. This Court has considered the submissions made and perused the material on record. NJS,J W.P No.37845 of 2018 4 9. At the outset, it may be noted that though the petitioner claims that the subject matter properties were partitioned between him and his father vide partition deed dated 10.02.1990, the same was not filed. As per the averments made in the petitioner’s affidavit, it his case that the respondent No.5 obtained a sale deed dated 11.01.2018 in respect of the subject matter properties in a fraudulent manner. If that be the case, the petitioner should have approached the competent Civil Court to declare the said sale deed as null and void, but nothing is stated in the affidavit to the effect that the petitioner has filed any civil suit. Be that as it may. 10. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent No.1 has not followed the procedure as contemplated under Section 5(3) of the A.P. Rights in Lands and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971. However, the counter-affidavit of the respondent No.1, clearly mentions the circumstances under which the entries in the revenue records with regard to the mutation of the respondent No.5’s name was made. Even the statement of the petitioner’s father is enclosed to the counter-affidavit which goes to show that no-objection was raised for mutating the name of the respondent No.5 and for issuing pattadar passbooks in respect of the subject matter properties in favor of the respondent No.5. No reply-affidavit is filed denying the averments made in the counter-affidavit and in those circumstances, this Court has no option, except to treat the averments made therein are admitted. 11. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner sought to impress this Court further with reference to the partition stated to have been taken place between the petitioner and his father, as it is specifically mentioned in the counter-affidavit of the respondent No.1 that on the basis of the registered sale deed, the mutation in respect of the subject matter properties was undertaken, this Court see no illegality in the action of the respondent No.1. 12. For the above stated reasons, this Court finds no merits in the writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. However, this order would NJS,J W.P No.37845 of 2018 5 not preclude the petitioner to work out his remedies, if any, in accordance with law. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA Date:09.12.2025 Ksj