APHC010080972020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3233] WEDNESDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN WRIT PETITION NO: 5028/2020 Between: 1. AMURI CHANDRAIAH, S/O GANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, RESIDENT OF G.K.RACHAPALLI H/O MADITHADU VILLAGE, T.SUNDUPALLI MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KADAPA, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, T.SUNDUPALLI MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. 4. SMT CHINTHALA CHINNA NAGAMMA, W/O LATE RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, RESIDENT OF G.K.RACHAPALLI, MADITHADU VILLAGE, T.SUNDUPALLI MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. 5. SMT CHINTHALA PADMAVATHAMMA W/O LATE VEERANAGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, OCC ANGANWADI TEACHER, RESIDENT OF G.K.RACHAPALLI, MADITHADU VILLAGE, T.SUNDUPALLI MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 HBKM,J W.P.No.5028 of 2020 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 proceedings Ref.No.ROR/E684/2016, dated 01-12-2017 of the 2nd respondent directing the 3rd respondent to incorporate necessary changes in all the village accounts i.e., 1-B, Adangal, etc., and also in online web land for the property admeasuring an extent of Ac.4.52 cents in Sy.No.489 /2, situated in Madithadu village, T.Sundupalli Mandal, YSR Kadapa District in the name of respondents 4 and 5 without issuing notice to the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and violation of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of Constitution of India and also violation of principles of natural justice and suspend the same and consequently direct the 3rd respondent not to dispossess the petitioner from the property admeasurifig an extent of Ac.4.52 cents in Sy.No.489/2, situated in Madithadu village, T.Sundupalli Mandal, YSR Kadapa District IA NO: 1 OF 2020 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 direct the 3rd respondent not to dispossess the petitioner from the property admeasuring an extent of Ac.4.52 cents in Sy.No.489/2, situated in Madithadu village, T.Sundupalli Mandal, YSR Kadapa District by suspending the order passed by the 2" respondent vide proceedings Ref.No.ROR/E684/2016, dated 01-12-2017, pending disposal of the Writ petition before this Honourable court and 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 grant leave to me to file counter affidavit in the main writ petition i.e. WP No.5028 / 2020 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KUMARA RATNAM TENNETI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. CHAKRAVARTHY P V S K 2. GP FOR REVENUE (AP) 3 HBKM,J W.P.No.5028 of 2020 The Court made the following Order: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.5. 2. This writ petition was filed questioning the order of the 2nd respondent dated 01.12.2017 directing the 3rd respondent to thoroughly once again verify the right, title, enjoyment and possession over the subject land in an extent of Ac.4.52 cents in Sy.No.489/2 of Madithadu Village and to take necessary action for issuance of pattadar passbooks and title deeds to the actual owners of the said lands including the appellant therein and to incorporate the necessary changes in all the village accounts i.e., 1B, Adangal, etc.., 3. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner seeks remand of the matter to the 2nd respondent on the ground that no notice was served to the writ petitioner/the respondent therein. But in the impugned order of the 2nd respondent dated 01.12.2017, which was mentioned that the notices were issued to both the appellants and respondent therein and the above case underwent many hearings and finally it was heard on 23.09.2017. The appellants therein were present and the respondent was absent. Ultimately, it was observed that there was an error committed by the 3rd respondent in issuing the pattadar passbooks and title deeds to the respondent therein/writ petitioner herein for the subject land in an extent of Ac.4.52 cents in Sy.No.489/2 of Madithadu Village without verifying the title, possession and 4 HBKM,J W.P.No.5028 of 2020 enjoyment of the land contrary to the procedure under Section 5 (3) of the Act and Rules in 4 to 9, 26 (6) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Rules, 1989. It was observed that there was a procedural lapse in issuance of pattadar passbook/title deed to the respondent therein/writ petitioner herein. 4. In view of the same, the 3rd respondent was directed, to thoroughly once again verify the right, title, enjoyment and possession of the subject land, so as to take necessary action for issuance of pattadar passbooks/title deeds to the actual owners and to incorporate the necessary changes in the village accounts. The impugned order categorically says that, further an appeal lies to the Joint Collector, Kadapa under Section 9 of the ROR Act, within 30 days from the date of receipt of the said order. However, the writ petitioner, when he is aggrieved of the impugned order of the 2nd respondent dated 01.12.2017, it appears that, if it applies no appeal is preferred so far before the said Joint Collector, but straightaway filed this writ petition. 5. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader relying upon the receipt of instructions from the 3rd respondent dated 15.09.2025 and the learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent submit that the writ petitioner without availing the effective and alternative remedy, straightaway filed this writ petition belatedly. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent also points out the averment made by the writ petitioner in the affidavit to the effect that till 5 HBKM,J W.P.No.5028 of 2020 filing of the revision before the Joint Collector, the interest of the writ petitioner may be protected in this writ petition. 7. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.4 in her life time and the 5th respondent played fraud and the petitioner was ignorant of passing of the above said impugned order by the 2nd respondent dated 01.12.2017, till the actual mutation took place in favour of the 4th and 5th respondents. Hence, there was some delay in assailing the said impugned order of the 2nd respondent dated 01.12.2017. However, he admits that no revision is filed so far and necessary permission may be given by this Court to approach the revisional authority and if necessary permission is given, the petitioner would approach the revisional authority. 8. In view of the above said facts and circumstances, as there is an efficacious alternative remedy i.e., before the Joint Collector, Rayachoti Annamayya District, the petitioner is permitted to file the necessary appeal/revision before the said authority by enclosing all the necessary documents in support of his claim questioning the orders of the 2nd respondent dated 01.12.2017 by raising all the grounds permissible under law within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. On receipt of the same, the Joint Collector, Rayachoti, Annamayya District shall consider and dispose of the said appeal/revision of the petitioner herein strictly in accordance with law by hearing all the parties concerned, including the petitioner and the 5th respondent herein and the official respondents, giving 6 HBKM,J W.P.No.5028 of 2020 due opportunity, upon verification of the records and the subject land, appropriate decision shall be taken on its own merits as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three (03) months thereafter. The written instructions of the 3rd respondent dated 15.09.2025 shall be made as part of the Court record. 9. 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 05.11.2025 PGT