IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAVATI (Special Original Juriediction) THURSDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE I PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 409 OF 2022 -4^ 2L ".w, fl. .o/ Between; 1. Madineni Venkata Rao, S/o. BalaKotayya Aged about 63 years, R/o. D.No. 3-110, East Bazar, Athaluru, Amaravati Mandal, Guntur District. 2. Madineni Brahmaiah, S/o. Bala Kotayya Aged about 57 years, R/o. D.No. 3-110, East Bazar, Athaluru, Amaravati Mandal, Guntur District. ...Petitioners AND 1. The State Of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Principal Secretary Revenue Department Secretariat Buildings, Amaravathi, Guntur District 2. The District Collector, Collectorate Office Guntur, Guntur District. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Guntur, Guntur District. 4. The Tahsildar, Amaravati Mandal, Guntur District. 5. Amerineni Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Samabaiah Aged about 40 years, R/o. Athaluru Village Amaravati Mandal. Guntur District. ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue ah appropriate order or direction more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Endorsement issued by the 4 th respondent dated 22.09.2021, whereby issued no objection for recording an extent of 0.25 cents in Sy. No. 331-B2 of Athaluru Village, Amaravati Mandal, Guntur District in favor of 5th respondent as illegal, arbitrary, ultra-virus, against the principles of natural natural justice, contrary to procedure established by law, apart from being violative of Article 300-A Constitution of India and set aside the including the consequential proceedings. lA NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to suspend the Endorsement dated 22.09.2021, pending disposal of the WP. No. 409/2022 Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI KAMBHAMPATI RAMESH BABU Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 4: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: same APHC010001052022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) BMS [3505] ■j THURSDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 409/2022 Between: ...PETITIONER(S) Madineni Venkata Rao and Others AND ...RESPONDENT(S) The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petltioner{S): 1.KAMBHAMPAT1 RAMESH BABU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR REVENUE 2 The Court made the following order: The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the endorsement dated 22.09.2021, issued by the respondent-Tahsildar, whereby and whereunder it was directed to mutate the name of the 5^^ respondent in the revenue records in respect of land, admeasuring an extent of Ac.0.25 cents in Sy.No.331-B2 of Athaluru Village, Amaravati Mandal, Guntur District. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that they are the absolute owners and possessors of land, admeasuring an extent of Ac.0.92 72 cents each in Sy.No.331/B2 of the said village. Originally, the subject lands were owned by one Sri Nettem Venkateswarlu and after the demise of the said individual, the property was devolved upon his wife Smt. N. Venkayamma, who is none other than the paternal aunt of the petitioners. Smt. N. Venkayamma executed a registered will deed vide document No.40 of 1989, dated 03.08.1989, bequeathing the subject land in favour of the petitioners, apart from the other properties. The said Smt. N. Venkayamma, died on 02.04.1997. Later, the subject land was partitioned equally between the 3 petitioners. Since then, they have been in possession and enjoyment of the subject land by doing cultivation. It is further case of the petitioners that the 5'^ respondent made a representation to the 4‘^ respondent requesting to mutate his name in respect of land admeasuring an extent of Ac.0.25 cents in Sy.No.331-B2 in web land online register. In pursuance of the said representation, the 4*^ respondent issued a notice dated 23.01.2001, asking the petitioners to attend for an enquiry, to be conducted on 08.02.2021. The petitioners have attended before the 4‘^ respondent for enquiry and submitted explanation claiming right over the property by producing ail the relevant documents. Thereafter, the 4*'^ respondent issued impugned endorsement dated 22.01.2021, to mutate the name of the respondent in the revenue records in respect of land to an extent of Ac.0.25 cents in Sy.No.33/B2 of the said village. Questioning the said endorsement, the present writ 3. petition is filed. On the other hand, the 4*^ respondent filed counter affidavit stating that the impugned endorsement was issued, after considering the documents filed by the petitioners and the 5^'^ respondent, by duly taking into consideration of ground reality 4. 4 position given by the Mandal and Village Surveyors, who confirmed that the 5'^ respondent is the absolute title holder in respect of land admeasuring an extent of Ac.0.25 cents in Sy.No.331-B2 of the said Village. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioners are having title over an extent of Ac.0.7014 cents each in the said survey number, but their names were erroneously recorded as against an extent of Ac.0.92/4 cents in online web land. The counter further reads that the petitioners are in actual physical possession of land to an extent of Ac.0.76y2 cents each and the remaining extent of Ac.0.25 cents is in actual physical possession of the 5'^ respondent. It is further averred in the counter affidavit that notices were served on the petitioners as well as 5^'^ respondent, and after taking into consideration of the reports submitted by the Mandal and Village Surveyors, the 4*'^ respondent come to the conclusion that the claim made by the 5^^ respondent is found to be genuine and thereafter then the impugned order was passed to mutate his name in the revenue records. It is further averred in the counter affidavit that the contention of the petitioners that they are the absolute owners and possessors of the land, admeasuring an extent of Ac.0.92 14 cents each is false and incorrect, as per the report submitted by the Mandal and Village the 5 Surveyors. Apart from the same, the respondent also submitted a registered will deed dated 01.11.2004, said to have been executed by his grandmother Smt. Nettem Kotamma. Considering the rival claims, the 4‘^ respondent issued impugned endorsement dated 22.09.2021. The petitioners filed reply affidavit whereunder denied the averments made in the counter affidavit filed by the 4*^ respondent stating that the grandmother of the respondent Smt.N. Kottama does not have any right over the property, as such the will deed said to have been executed by her cannot be taken into consideration It is further stated in the reply affidavit that, before coming to such conclusion, that the 5**^ respondent is in possession of the subject land, the 4'^ respondent neither conducted the survey nor any notice was issued to the petitioners. It is further stated that the petitioners are the absolute owners and possessors of land admeasuring an extent of Ac.0.92 Vz cents each and apart from the petitioners, nobody has got any right title or interest over the same including the 5*^ respondent. It is further averred that it is purely civil dispute between the petitioners and the 5^^ respondent, therefore, the 4'^ respondent ought to have relegated the parties to the competent 5. 6 % Civil Court instead of going into the aspect of deciding title between them. The petitioner filed memo dated 10.07.2024 proof evidencing the service of notice as against the 5*'^ respondent. The said memo 6. is placed on record. Despite service of notice, none appears for the respondent. 7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant 8. Government Pleader for Revenue. It is not in dispute that the names of the petitioners were 9. mutated in the revenue records over an extent of Ac.0.92 72 cents each by the respondent and they were also issued patadar pass books and title deeds in respect of the said land. It is also not in dispute that the 5*^ respondent approached the 4*^ respondent by making representation requesting to mutate his name in the revenue records in respect of land admeasuring Ac.0.25 cents in Sy.No.331-B2 based on the will deed dated 01.11.2004, said to have been executed by his grandmother, Smt. N. Kottamma. It is also not in dispute that pursuant to the said representation, the 4‘^ respondent issued notice to the petitioners and thereafter they 7 have submitted explanation and attended for enquiry before the 4^^ respondent on 08.02.2021, and produced all relevant documents in respect of their claim. Despite submission of explanation /objections by the petitioners, the 4*^ respondent did not take into consideration of the same, while passing the impugned endorsement. On perusal of the impugned endorsement dated 22.09.2021 10. neither the case of the petitioners nor the explanation offered by them were referred to in the said endorsement. Further, the impugned endorsement was issued solely relying on the alleged reports, said to have been submitted by the Village and the Mandal Surveyors, who confirmed that the 5^'^ respondent is in actual physical possession of land, admeasuring of an extent of Ac.0.25 cents in Sy.No.331-B2, of the said village. Basing on the said report, the 4'^ respondent has come to the conclusion, and decided that the 5^'^ respondent is the absolute owner and possessor of land. th admeasuring 0.25 cents. While coming to such conclusion, the 4 respondent did not submit any finding as to how the 5^^ respondent is entitled to claim right over the subject land. Further, whenever there is title dispute between the parties, the Quasi Judicial Authority 8 shall refrain to decide the same and relegate them to civil court. In the instant case, by the impugned endorsement, the 4‘^ respondent decided the title over the subject property based on the report submitted by the Mandal & Village Surveyor. From the above it is clear that, the 4*^" respondent exceeded his jurisdiction while issuing the impugned endorsement. 11. The counsel for the petitioners, in support of his contentions, relied on the judgment in K.A. Swamy Vs. State of the A.P. rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department and others\ wherein it was held as follow: “In the light of the above factual situation and considering the fact that the rights of the parties involved in the present case and the scope of enquiry under the ROR Act by the authorities is limited, and especially the title aspects could not have been decided by the authorities under the Act. ’’ are 12. The said order was challenged by filing writ appeal W.A.No.456 of 2016. The Division Bench of this Court, after hearing the parties, held as under: vide 23. It is apt to state that the revenue authorities not substitutes for the Courts of competent civil jurisdiction and it is for the party concerned to invoke such jurisdiction are ^ 2015 (4) ALT60(S.B) 9 SO as to bar the summary enquiry by the revenue authorities into issues of highly disputed questions. Needless to state that revenue authorities in such a ‘summary enquiry’ would not be capable of deciding the complicated questions in comprehensive manner. 24. According to us, when the pattadar passbooks and title deeds have been Issued, the same cannot be cancelled automatically, more so, when the case involves serious question relating to the ownership, declaratory rights of the parties., unless civil Court find that there is no justification for issuance of the same. The presumption of correctness in issuance of pattadar pass books in favour of the persons is in the “Act 26 of 1971” and action of Government. But said recording in revenue records is not conclusive as it can be corrected and rectified by the civil Court. Unless a competent civil Court decides the actual title of the property in favour of any person, consequential measure for issuance or cancellation of pattadar pass books does not arise. 25. It is trite to refer the Section 8 of “Act No. 26 of 1971”, which reads as under:- Section 8. Bar of Suits:- (1) No suit shall lie against the Government or any officer of Government in respect of a claim to have an entry made or in relation to an entry made In any record of rights or to have any such entry omitted or amended. (2) If any person Is aggrieved as to any right of which he Is in possession by an entry made in any record of rights he may institute a suit against any person denying or interested to deny his title to such right for declaration of his right under Chapter-VI of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (Central Act 43 of 1963), and the entry In the record of rights shall be amended in accordance with any such declaration. ” A bare reading of the above provision of law discloses two eventualities viz., (a) a person who is aggrieved of any of the rights he possessed by the entry made in the record of rights, he may institute a suit against any person denying or interested to deny his title to such right for declaration of his right and (b) the entry in record 10 of rights shall be amended in accordance with such declaration by the Court. 26. The Hon"ble Supreme Court in Mahila Bajrangi (Dead) throughLRs. v. Badribai, W/o. Jagannath ^ held as under- “ the Tahsildar or authorities exercising powers of mutation (original, appellate or revisional) have not been accorded the status of civil Courts or Courts of exclusive Jurisdiction and such orders cannot be used as a basis or source for asserting a claim of resjudicata before a competent civil Court in a subsequent suit involving adjudication of title to the immovable property. The Supreme Court also observed that mutation proceedings before the revenue authorities were not judicial proceedings in a Court of law and do not decide questions of title to immovable properties ” The Erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Thummalapally Bhagya Laxmi Vs. Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District^., held as under;- “29. The Act provides for preparation and updating of record of rights; acquisition of rights and amendment/updating of record of rights for regularization of alienations/ transfers, issuance Form 13-B and entry in record of rights in accordance with such certificate. Against these two separate functions under the Act, the remedy of appeal and revision is provided to aggrieved party. Under either of the situations, the concluding Act is entry in record of rights. 30. The enquiry under the Act is summary in nature. The decision of recording authority under Section 5-A of the Act is required to be confined to the limited extent of regularizing a transaction which is otherwise not in conformity with the requirement of the Stamp Act/the Registration Act etc. If, in respect of the same property the parties approach or have approached the Civil Court and the Civil Court decided the rights of parties, the revenue authorities are bound by the judgment and decree of the Civil Court in exercise of their jurisdiction under the Act, because Section 8(2) has made it mandatory to update record of rights in accordance with such declaration. If contrary view is taken, then it results in anomalies and contradictory situations and to avoid such situations, the 27. of ^ (2003) 2 see 464 ^2014(4) ALD289 11 revenue authorities are bound by the adjudication of competent civii Court in exercise of their power under the Act. ” in other words, maintaining the writ petition under the tight of intricate, complex issues as clearly stated Supra, it means indirectly seeking the verdict on the disputed questions of title and possession from the revenue authorities which has to be dissuaded by all means. ” 28. The said judgments are squarely applicable to the hand, for the reasons recorded supra, the impugned endorsement is hereby set aside and accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. The 4*" respondent shall restore the entries in respect of the subject land by mutating the name of the petitioner. It is needless to mention that the parties may approach competent civil Court so as to agitate their rights in respect of subject land, if they are so advised. 13. case on dated 22.09.2021 Sd/- G HELA NAIDU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// -(=7 SECTION OFFICER / To, 1. One CC to SRI KAMBHAMPATI RAMESH BABU Advocate [OPUC] 2. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 3. Three CD Copies Ksr (gsg) HIGH COURT DATED :01/05/2025 2 5JUL 2025 ORDER Co *^*>sCwretitS«ctigDX*/ WP.No.409 of 2022 WRIT PETITION IS ALLOWED WITHOUT COSTS