APHC010168972021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3233] MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN WRIT PETITION NO: 10263/2021 Between: 1. BOLLU PRABHAKARA RAO, S/O B. APPARAO, AGED 70 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURIST, R/O HNO. 18-6-12, VOKKALANKA STREET, VIZIANAGARAM. ...PETITIONER AND 1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRI. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, , VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. 3. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, , VIZIANAGARAM DIVISION, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. 4. TAHSILDAR, PUSAPATIREGA MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT 5. GALLA VIJAYALAKSHMI, W/O SUGUNASEELARAO, AGED 72 YEARS, R/O PLOT NO. 124, SECTOR-IV, MVP COLONY, VISAKHAPATNAM. 6. GARLANKI SUJATHA, W/O TRINADHARAO, AGED 34 YEARS, R/O HNO. 17-2-29, AG ROAD, VIZIANAGARAM. 7. TIRUMALAREDDY SUNITHA, W/O VENKATA RAO, AGED 32 YEARS, R/O HNO. 17-2-29, AG ROAD, VIZIANAGARAM. 2 HBKM,J W.P.No.10263 of 2021 8. BOYA SUDHARANI, W/O SRINIVAS REDDY, AGED 31 YEARS, R/O HNO. 17-2-29, AG ROAD, VIZIANAGARAM. 9. RAYAPUREDDY BHAGYALAKSHMI, W/O BHASKAR, AGED 28 YEARS, R/O HNO. 17-2-29, AG ROAD, VIZIANAGARAM. 10. BANDI PRIYANKA, W/O SRINIVASA RAO, AGED 28 YEARS, R/O HNO. 17-2-29, AG ROAD, VIZIANAGARAM. 11. NARELLA AMARANATH, S/O RAMAKRISHNA , AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O D.NO. 18-3-31, GUNDALAVARI STREET, VIZIANAGARAM TOWN, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. R11 IS IMPLEADED AS PER THE COURT ORDER DT.12.07.2024 VIDE ORDERS PASSED IN I.A.NO. 01 OF 2022. ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 topleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the 4th respondent in mutating the names of the respondent Nos. 6 to 10 for the property in Survey No. 428-1 admeasuring Ac. 2.42 cents of Kumili Revenue Village, Pusapatirega Mandal, Vizianagaram District without serving any notice on the petitioner, as illegal, irregular, irrational and violative of principles of natural justice and offends Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently suspend the mutation entries in the names of the respondent Nos. 6 to 10 and direct the respondent No. 4 to maintain status quo ante and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2021 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 mutation entries in the names of the respondent Nos: 6 to 10 and direct the respondent No: 4 to maintain status quo ante in Survey No: 428-1 admeasuring Ac. 2.42 cents of Kumili Revenue Village, Pusapatirega Mandal, Vizianagaram District pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass 3 HBKM,J W.P.No.10263 of 2021 IA NO: 1 OF 2022 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 permit the petitioner herein to implead him, as party respondents No. 11 in W.P. No. 10263 of 2021 as well as in I.A., on the file of this Hon'ble Court and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2022 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 vacate the interim order granted in I.A. No.1 of 2021 in W.P. No. 10263 of 2021, dated 14.06.2021 and pass such other IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 may be pleased to vacate the interim order dated 14.06.2021 in WP.No.10263 of 2021 and to dismiss the Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M SOLOMON RAJU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. A A SWAMY 2. GP FOR REVENUE 3. BONU RAMA SHANKAR RAO 4. SARIPALLI SUBRAHMANYAM 4 HBKM,J W.P.No.10263 of 2021 The Court made the following Order: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent Nos.1 to 4 and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.5 to 11. 2. This writ petition was filed questioning the action of the 4th respondent in mutating the names of the respondent Nos.6 to 10 for the property in Survey No.428-1 admeasuring Ac.2.42 cents of Kumili Revenue Village, Pusapatirega Mandal, Vizianagaram District without serving any notice on the petitioner. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the writ petition filed by the respondent Nos.6 to 10 in W.P.No.19305 of 2019, this Court directed the respondents therein to hear the 5th respondent herein, the petitioners therein and all other necessary parties, before passing any orders on the said application made by the petitioners therein in the matter of mutation of the names of the petitioners therein to an extent of Ac.2.42 cents in Sy.No.428-1 of Kumili Village, Pusapatirega Mandal, Vizianagaram District vide order dated 09.12.2019. But without issuing any individual notice to the petitioner herein, the 4th respondent mutated the names of the respondent Nos.6 to 10 in the revenue records for the subject land. 5 HBKM,J W.P.No.10263 of 2021 4. He also further submits that the 5th respondent instituted O.S.No.154 of 2010 on the file of VII Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court), Visakhapatnam, against the petitioner and the other unofficial respondents herein seeking partition and separate possession of the plaint schedule property into five equal shares and to allot one such share to the plaintiff along with the costs. The subject matter of this writ petition also forms part of Item No.4 of the Plaint Schedule Property therein. The said suit was dismissed by the trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 12.03.2018, against which, the 5th respondent preferred First Appeal before this Court and the same is pending, in which, there is no interim order. 5. The dismissal of the suit was not brought to the notice of the 4th respondent by the respondent Nos.6 to 10 on the fresh application made by them for mutation of their names in the revenue records for the subject land. The petitioner and the unofficial respondents are the relatives specifically the respondent Nos.6 to 10 are the legal representatives of the deceased brother of the petitioner. 6. When the Adangal/Pahani copy dated 16.02.2016 discloses the name of the petitioner’s father for the subject land, the mutation was made in favour of the respondent Nos.6 to 10 for the same subject land by the impugned action of the 4th respondent and accordingly, the 6 HBKM,J W.P.No.10263 of 2021 Adangal/Pahani copy dated 26.03.2021 discloses their names. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition was filed. 7. He also further contended that the impugned action of the 4th respondent is contrary to the full bench judgment of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.P.No.7868 of 2004 dated 11.07.2007, wherein it was held that under Section 5 (3) r/w Rules 19 and 5 (2) of the Rules of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971, that it casts a duty on the Recording Authority to issue notice in writing to all the persons, whose names are entered in the Record of Rights and who are interested in or affected by the proposed amendment. 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the unofficial respondents relying upon their counter affidavit submits that in fact no notice is required to be given to the petitioner as the subject land is self acquired property of the father of the petitioner and the same was bequeathed in favour of the father of the respondent Nos.6 to 10 by way of a registered will dated 06.11.2009. As the subject Will deals with the acquired properties of the petitioner’s father and the subject land of this writ petition is also forming part of the said Will and as such the petitioner is not entitled for issuance of any notice. 9. The learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 4 relying upon the counter of the 4th respondent 7 HBKM,J W.P.No.10263 of 2021 submits that in pursuance of the orders of this Hon’ble Court in W.P.No.19305 of 2019 dated 09.12.2019, the 4th respondent issued Form-8 notices to all the parties concerned on the application made by the respondent Nos.6 to 10 for mutation of their names on 29.07.2020 with respect to the subject land. But no objections have been filed by the petitioner within the prescribed period of 15 days of statutory period time. Hence, the then Tahsildar, Pusapatirega mutated their names into web land records vide proceedings dated 21.08.2020. The writ petitioner did not file any claims or objections before the Recording Authority at the time of issuing of Form-8 notice under ROR Act. 10. In view of the above said facts and circumstances and upon consideration of the rival submissions made, it is to be seen that the petitioner has not instituted any suit against the unofficial respondents with respect to the subject land. As stated supra, the above said suit was instituted by the 5th respondent and the same was dismissed. In view of the same, the First Appeal was preferred by the 5th respondent herein. According to both the counsels, it is pending for hearing before this Court. As could be seen from the above said referred Will dated 06.11.2009, the petitioner is not one of the beneficiaries under the said Will. The unofficial respondent Nos.6 to 10 are claiming the subject land under the above said Will as it was bequeathed in favour of their deceased father, who was the 4th defendant in the suit. 8 HBKM,J W.P.No.10263 of 2021 11. On the said facts of this case, the impugned mutation was occurred from the name of the deceased petitioner’s father to the respondent Nos.6 to10 who are representing their deceased father as per the above said Will. But the petitioner’s name was not there at any point of time in the revenue records for the subject land by way of mutation. However, as the petitioner is personally interested and disputing the alleged Will and the rights of the unofficial respondents herein, he is also to be heard as an interested person, if he makes any claim or objections for the impugned mutation over the subject land. Even according to the above said provisions of law and as per the above said direction of this Court in the above said writ petition, since there is an appeal provision available before the 3rd respondent, the petitioner can assail the impugned action of the 4th respondent herein against the impugned mutation proceedings dated 21.08.2020. In view of the said settled legal position and the availability of alternative remedy of appeal, which is an effective remedy, the petitioner is permitted to prefer an appeal before the appellate authority against the impugned action of the 4th respondent in issuing the mutation proceedings dated 21.08.2020, in accordance with law by enclosing all the necessary documents in support of his claim, within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. On receipt of such appeal if any, the appellate authority shall consider and dispose of the same within a period of four (04) months thereafter strictly in 9 HBKM,J W.P.No.10263 of 2021 accordance with law by hearing all the parties concerned, including the petitioner and the unofficial respondent Nos.5 to 11 and others concerned, if any, upon verification of the records and the subject land, appropriate decision shall be taken on its own merits by the said appellate authority. Any interim relief if sought, can also be considered by the appellate authority in accordance with law. 12. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of. Interim order if any deemed to have been vacated. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE B. KRISHNA MOHAN 08.12.2025 PGT