APHC010079892024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3208] WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 4459/2024 Between: 1. GANGULAMMA, W/O NARAYANA, AGED 53 YEARS, R/O ARAVAPALLE VILLAGE, H/O MELUMDODDI VILLAGE, PUNGANUR MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CHITTOOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PALAMANER, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, PUNGANURU, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 5. AMAMATHA REDDY, S/O SANKARA REDDY, AGED 42 YEARS, R/O MELUMDODDI VILLAGE, PUNGANUR MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...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 2 may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent no.3 in entertaining the appeal filed by the Respondent no. 5 herein seeking for cancellation of pattadar passbook and the title deed issued in favour of the petitioner herein pertaining to the petitioners property in Survey No. 208/10 admeasuring to an extent of Ac 0.58 cents located in notice vide Punganur Village and Mandal, Chittoor District by issuing Roc.C/2285/2023, Dated 23.01.2024 as illegal arbitrary, unconstitutional and contrary to the principles of natural justice, alongside being contrary to the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbook Act and Rules 1989 and also the ratio laid down by this Honble High Court in Ratnamma Vs Revenue Divisional Officer 2015 (5) ALT 228 and consequently set aside the proceedings pending on the file of Respondent no.3 initiated by Respondent no.5 for cancellation of pattadar passbook and the title deed issued in favour of the petitioner herein pertaining to the petitioners property in Survey No. 208/10 admeasuring to an extent of Ac 0.58 cents located in Punganur Village and Mandal, Chittoor District and pass such other order or orders as such 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 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. AYESHA AZMA S Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. K ASAD AHAMED The Court made the following: 3 ORDER: The present Writ Petition is filed, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief: “to issue any writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or an appropriate writ or order declaring the action of the Respondent no.3 in entertaining the appeal filed by the Respondent no.5 herein seeking for cancellation of pattadar passbook and the title deed issued in favour of the petitioner herein pertaining to the petitioners property in Survey No. 208/10 admeasuring to an extent of Ac 0.58 cents located in notice vide Punganur Village and Mandal, Chittoor District by issuing Roc.C/2285/2023, Dated 23.01.2024 as illegal arbitrary, unconstitutional and contrary to the principles of natural justice, alongside being contrary to the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbook Act and Rules 1989 and also the ratio laid down by this Honble High Court in Ratnamma Vs Revenue Divisional Officer 2015 (5) ALT 228 and consequently set aside the proceedings pending on the file of Respondent no.3 initiated by Respondent no.5 for cancellation of pattadar passbook and the title deed issued in favour of the petitioner herein pertaining to the petitioners property in Survey No. 208/10 admeasuring to an extent of Ac 0.58 cents located in Punganur Village and Mandal, Chittoor District and pass such other order or orders….” 2. Heard Ms. Ayesha Azma.S, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that initially respondent no.5 has filed an application for deletion of the name of the petitioner from the revenue records and including their name under 5(1) of ROR Act. Basing on the said application, though he has filed the application in the year 2012, but the respondent no.3 has issued notice on 23.01.2024. Questioning the same, the Writ Petition is filed. 4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that after a decade, respondent no.3, who has no authority, has entertained 4 the application filed by respondent no.5 and issued notice. By virtue of this, the respondents are trying to interfere with the possession of the petitioner’s property. 5. Reply to the same, learned Assistant Government Pleader has submitted that in fact as per the provisions of the ROR Act, if any notice was issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer being the competent authority, the concerned may file his objections. But in the instant case, the petitioner directly approached this Court and filed the Writ Petition, which is not maintainable. 6. Considering the submissions made by this court, this Court is not inclined to go into the merits as the issue is pending before respondent no.3, the petitioner is directed to file objections within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the order and on filing such objections, respondent no.3 may consider by following due process and dispose of the same on merits. Till such time, the respondents are directed not to make any corrections to the revenue records 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications pending, if any, in the writ petition, shall also stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH 05.11.2025 RD 5 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO.4459 OF 2024 05.11.2025 RD