APHC010048602022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3505] THURSDAY ,THE SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 3520/2022 Between: Golla Kadiramma ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SREEMANNARAYANA VATTIKUTI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2 The Court made the following order: The present writ petition is filed questioning the action of the 4th respondent in mutating the name of 5th respondent in revenue records in respect of land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.5.38 cents in Sy.No.175-2C of Bramhasamudram Village & Mandal, Anantapur District. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that, originally the land to an extent of Ac.7.52 cents Sy.No.175-2C of Bramhasamudram Village & Mandal, Anantapur District, belonged to her father-in- law, Sri Golla Pedda Yerrappa. After his demise, the petitioner used to manage the family, as her husband was mentally retarded. It is the further case of the petitioner that, her father-in- law orally gifted the subject property to her. Later, she came to know that the revenue authorities mutated the 5th respondent’s name in respect of land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.5.38 cents in Sy.No.175-2C, by deleting her name, on coming to know about the same the petitioner made a representation dated 31.03.2021, to the 3rd respondent. On such representation, the 3rd respondent called for a report from the 4th respondent. Despite the receipt of report from the 4th respondent on 10.06.2021, the 3 3rd respondent did not take any action in the matter, aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. 4. On perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is clear that the 5th respondent’s name was mutated in the revenue records based on a registered gift deed dated 09.04.1992 vide document No.720/1992, executed by Sri Thippaiah S/o Golla Pedda Yerrappa i.e., the husband of the petitioner herein. Therefore, the action of the respondents in mutating the name of the 5th respondent is based on a registered instrument, and the same cannot be called in question by the present writ petition. Consequently, the action of the 4th respondent in mutating the name of the 5th respondent cannot be found fault in as much as, the same is done as per law. Further, the petitioner cannot claim any right over the property unless, the gift deed dated 09.04.1992 is set aside by the competent civil court. In the absence of any challenge against the said gift deed, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable. 4 5. In view of the same, there are no merits in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. It is always open to the petitioner to take steps in accordance with law, if she is so advised. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________ JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR Dt.06.03.2025 DSB 5 132 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR W.P.No.3520 of 2022 Date: 06.03.2025 U DSB