1 APHC010396192024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3208] THURSDAY,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 20031/2024 Between: 1. GORLE CHELLAYAMMA, W/O PYDANNA, R/O D.NO. 112-41/1, GORLIVANIPALEM VILLAGE, SABBAVARAM MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPLE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, 1ST FLOOR, AP SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, AP - 522503. 2. THE COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, VISAKHAPATNAM, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. THE JOINT COLLECTOR, ANAKAPALLI, ANDHRA PRADESH. 4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, NARSIGARAO PETA, ANAKAPALLI, AP. 5. THE TAHSILDAR, SABBAVARAM, ANAKAPALLI, ANDHRA PRADESH 2 DR, J W.P.No.20031 of 2024 6. KOTHAPALLI NARSIMHA SAI, S/O LATE KOTHAPALLI NARSIMHA RAO, R/O D.NO. 10-36-3/A, LAKSHMI NILAYAM, RAM NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNAM, A.P. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. S.V.S.S.SIVA RAM Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. V R REDDY KOVVURI The Court made the following: 3 DR, J W.P.No.20031 of 2024 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH WRIT PETITION No.20031 of 2024 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “…..to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of the writ of MANDAMUS declaring the action of the 4th respondent in entertaining the appeal filed by the 6th respondent and passing order vide RC. No.2116/2022/F/dt. 12.06.2023 cancelling entries of Pattadar Pass Book / Title Deed issued vide Khata No.1153 to the petitioner in respect of land admeasuring Ac.0.50 Cents in Sy. No. 346/5A-1 of Sabbavaram Village and Mandal, Anakapalli District and the further action of the 3rd respondent in confirming the order of the 4th respondent and dismissing the revision / appeal of the petitioner vide Rc. No. 620 / 2023 dated 28.08.2024 as wholly arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction, unjust and contrary to the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (Act No. 26 of 1971) besides being violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300 - A of Constitution of India and consequently set aside the Orders passed by the 3rd and the 4th Respondents ….” 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for 4 DR, J W.P.No.20031 of 2024 respondent Nos.1 to 5 and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6. 3. In fact, the grandfather of respondent No.6 was owner of the land to an extent of Ac.1.97 cents in Survey No.346/5, Sabbavaram Village and based on the same, a patta was also granted in his favour and the revenue entries were also recorded in favour of the pattadar. After demise of his father and mother, the entire land has partitioned between the family members and an extent of Ac.0.94 cents in Survey No.346/5 has devolved to the share of the 6th respondent and accordingly, he made an application for mutation of his name in revenue records as per Section 5(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short, „the ROR Act‟) and at that time it came to the notice of the 6th respondent that the name of the petitioner is entered in the revenue records without following any procedure contemplated under the ROR Act and the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Rules, 1989 (for short, „the ROR Rules‟). Immediately, he preferred an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer for deletion of the name of the petitioner herein and by including the name of the 6th respondent as legal heir of the original pattadar. The said appeal 5 DR, J W.P.No.20031 of 2024 has considered by the Revenue Divisional Officer and passed orders on 12.06.2023 with the following observations: “8) As per the Tahsildar, Sabbavaram report: a) As per the Settlement Fair Adangal record, the pattadar is Kothapalli Narasimharao and subsequently the land Ac. 0.98 cts out of 1.97 cts was acquired through the equal share, by his father, K.Narasimharao and after demise of his father, he has been in possession and enjoyment of the subject land. b) Smt.Gorle Chellayyamma has failed to submit the link documents for the subject land as to how acquired from original pattadars in Sy.No. 346/5 of Sabbavaram Village. c) At the time of field enquiry, the land is vacant on ground and there is a chilli garden which was planted the part of the land for an extent of Ac.0.50 cts by Smt. Gorle Chellayyamma. d) Sri. Kottapalli Narasimha Sai has applied an F-line application for survey of land through Mee-Seva and survey certificate dt. 18.06.2020 was issued by the Tahsildar, Sabbavaram and informing that the land applied for by him, has been measured and the neighboring ryoths have given their consent for the said survey. In the Survey certificate, it was mentioned that the applicant Sri. Kottapalli Narsimha Sai is in enjoyment of land to an extent of Ac. 0.94 cts in Sy.No. 346/5A of Sabbavaram Village. 6 DR, J W.P.No.20031 of 2024 e) Sri.Gorle Chellayyamma has filed suit in OS.No. 61/2021 before the Hon'ble Pl.Sr.Civil Judge at Anakapalli. It is noticed that the suit is filed only for 0.50 Cts and the suit is for grant of Permanent Injunction. Present the case still pending. In view of the above findings, it is clearly established the land measuring an extent of Ac. 1.97cts in Sy.No. 346/5 classified as Sarkar Punja Patta. No. 483) Kothapalli Lakshmi Narayana S/o Narasimharao and issued pattadar pass book to Kothapalli Narasimharao S/o late Narasimharao vide Khata. No. 159. Further the respondent has failed to submit the link documents for the subject land as to how acquired from original pattadar Le., Kothapalli Narasimharao and present legal heirs. In view of the above circumstances and in exercise of powers conferred on me U/sec. 5(B) of the A.P.Records of rights in Lands and Pattadar Pass books Act, 1971, I hereby allowed the appeal and ordered for cancellation of entries of Pattadar Pass books/Title deeds issued vide katha.No.1153 of the respondent for the land measuring Ac.0.50 cts in Survey No.546/5A1 of Sabbavaram village in Sabbavaram Mandal. In view of the above, The Tahsildar, Sabbavaram is directed to take further action on the application filed by Sri Kothapalli Narasimha Sai S/o Narasimha Murthy in accordance strictly adhering to the procedure prescribed under the Act and Rules with A.P. Records of Rights in Lands and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971.” 7 DR, J W.P.No.20031 of 2024 4. Aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioner herein preferred a revision before the Joint Collector and the same was numbered as R.P.No.23 of 2023 and the said revision was considered and dismissed vide order dated 28.08.2024. As against the same, the present writ petition is filed. 5. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that originally the land admeasuring 0.50 cents situated in Survey No.346/5A-1 of Sabbavaram Village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District belongs to the husband of the petitioner i.e., Gorle Pydanna which he inherited from his ancestors and accordingly he is cultivating the said land by growing fruit bearing trees. Based on the possession, the revisional authorities have incorporated his name in the relevant revenue records and also issued pattadar pass books and title deeds in the year 2009. Thereafter, the husband of the petitioner has conveyed the said property to the petitioner by way of a registered settlement deed vide document No.91/2016 dated 11.01.2016 on the file of SRO, Sabbavaram, Anakapalli Mandal. Based on the possession and the conveyance deed, the revenue authorities have included the name of the petitioner in revenue records including the ROR, 1-B register and webland and consequently a pattadar passbook was 8 DR, J W.P.No.20031 of 2024 also issued in her favour vide khata No.1153. Considering the said title deeds, the bank also granted a loan of Rs.20,00,000/- in favour of the petitioner. While the things stood thus, when the 6th respondent is trying to interfere with the possession of the petitioner, she filed a suit for permanent injunction against the 6th respondent and two others on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Anakapalle and the same was numbered as O.S.No.61 of 2021 and the same is pending consideration. 6. Only to circumvent suit profits, the 6th respondent has filed an appeal before the 4th respondent for cancellation of the entries made in favour of the petitioner under Section 5(5) of the ROR Act. The said action of the 6th respondent in filing the appeal before the 4th respondent and entertaining the same by the 4th respondent is without jurisdiction and is contrary to the observations made by this Court in Ratnamma v. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmavaram, Ananthapur District 1 . Aggrieved by the orders of the 4th respondent, the petitioner has also filed a revision before the 3rd respondent. But, the 3rd respondent has also dismissed the revision without appreciating the facts properly. Hence, the present writ petition. 1 2015(5) ALT 228 9 DR, J W.P.No.20031 of 2024 7. Considering the submissions, this Court has passed the following interim order on 11.09.2024: “Heard Sri S.V.S.S. Siva Ram, Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner and Sri K. Arjun Chowdhary, Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the Respondent Nos.1 to 5. 2. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner is directed to take out Personal Notice in respect of the Unofficial Respondent No.6 within one week from today and file proof of receipt of Notice within a week thereafter. 3. Let Counter Affidavit be filed within four weeks. Two weeks thereafter for filing Re-joinder, if any. 4. The Impugned Orders dated 12.06.2023 and 28.08.2024 (Exs.P.1 & P.2 respectively) shall remain suspended till the next listing. 5. List the matter on 06.11.2024.” 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that based on the settlement deed which was registered in favour of the petitioner by the husband vide document No.91 of 2016 the respondent authorities have considered and issued pattadar pass books and title deeds. In view of the same, once the title is confirmed in the name of the petitioner, the only remedy available to the 6th respondent is to approach the Civil Court for declaration of title in his name. But contra, the 6th respondent has 10 DR, J W.P.No.20031 of 2024 approached the 4th respondent by filing an appeal and the same was entertained which is contrary to the provisions of the Act and also the Rules. 9. Reply to the said contentions, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 6th respondent has made his submissions that in fact as per the report and settlement fair adangal of Sabbavaram village, the subject land in Survey No.346/5 with a total extent of Ac.1.97 cents is stand classified as “Sarkar Punja” and Kottapalli Narasimha Rao, S/o. Lakshmi Narayanana is recorded as pattadar and the manual adangal available at Tahsildar office with regard to the fasali year 1415, it is found that Survey No.346/5 with a total extent of 1.97 cents is recorded in the name of Kottapalli Narasimha Rao. To substantiate his contention, he has also placed reliance on the documents filed along with the vacate stay petition. According to the said documents, he has relied on the pattadar passbook granted in favour of the grandfather of the 6th respondent i.e., patta No.159 dated 30.06.1995 and the revenue records are also shown the name of the Kothapalli Narasimha Rao for an extent of Ac.1.97 cents in Survey No.346/5. When that being the position, 11 DR, J W.P.No.20031 of 2024 the respondents behind back have changed the name in revenue records by mutating the name of the petitioner without following the procedure contemplated under the ROR Act and the ROR Rules. In fact, the very same issue fell for consideration before this Court in Chinnam Pandurangam v. Mandal Revenue Officer, Serilingampally Mandal2 and the matter is referred to the Full Bench and this Court has categorically held at paragraph Nos.9, 10 and 11 as follows: “9. While interpreting the provisions in the manner aforesaid, the Division Bench did not give due weightage to the words “issue notice in writing” and the expression “shall also be published” appearing in Section 5(3) and Rule 19(2) and this is the reason why it was held that individual notice is not required to be given to the persons whose names are entered in the revenue records or/and who are interested in or affected by the amendment. With respect, we are unable to subscribe to the view of the Division Bench, which is per se contrary to the language of Section 5(3) of the Act read with Rule 19(2) of the Rules. 10. The issue deserves to be considered from another angle. If an application is made for amendment of the existing entries in the Record of Rights, the person whose name already exists in such record is entitled to contest 2 2007 SCC OnLine AP 459 12 DR, J W.P.No.20031 of 2024 the proposed amendment. He can do so only if a notice regarding the proposed amendment is given to him by the recording authority. An order passed against a person whose name already exist in the Record of Rights without giving him notice of the proposed amendment and effective opportunity of hearing is liable to be declared nullity on the ground of violation of the rule of audi alteram partem, which, as mentioned above, represent the most important facet of the rules of natural justice. It needs no emphasis that the rules of natural justice are applicable in all judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings. The rule of hearing is also applicable in purely administrative proceedings and actions where any public authority passes an order affecting the rights of any individual. The applicability of the rules of natural justice to purely administrative actions has been recognized by the Supreme Court in State of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei, AIR 1967 SC 1269 and has been reiterated in various judgments including those of A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India, AIR 1970 SC 150, Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597, S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan, AIR 1981 SC 136, Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 818 and Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, AIR 1986 SC 180. 11. From the above discussion, it is clear that the requirement of issuing notice in writing to all persons whose names are entered in the Record of Rights and who are interested in or affected by the amendment is independent of the requirement of publication of notice in accordance with the second part of Section 5(3) read with 13 DR, J W.P.No.20031 of 2024 Rules 19 and 5(2) of the Rules. The language of Form-VIII in which the notice is required to be published cannot control the interpretation of the substantive provision contained in Section 5(3), which, as mentioned above, casts a duty on the recording authority to issue notice in writing to all persons whose names are entered in the Record of Rights and who are interested in or affected by the proposed amendment.” 10. As per the above said observations, if the respondents want to change or mutate the name of the third parties, they have to issue Form-VIII wide publicity. Along with the same, the authorities have also needs to issue Form-VIII (2) to the concerned persons, but in the instant case the respondents have not followed the said procedure. Unilaterally they deleted the name of the father of the 6th respondent by mutating the name of the petitioner. In support of his contentions, he has also placed reliance on the observations made by the appellate authority where the appellate authority has considered the report and placed reliance on the settlement fair adangals of the Sabbavaram Village and also placed reliance of copy of manual pattadar passbook of Sri Kothapalli Narasimha Rao dated 30.06.1995, copy of legal heir certificate issued by the then MRO, Sabbavaram on 18.11.2002, copy of endorsement of the Public 14 DR, J W.P.No.20031 of 2024 Information Officer and Deputy Tahsildar, Sabbavaram issued under RTI Act and also placed reliance on the documents filed by the Tahsildar those are settlement fair adangal where the name of the grandfather of the 6th respondent is recorded and the assignment register shows that the subject land is a private land and the manual adangal with regard to fasalai year 1415. Further, the learned counsel for 6th respondent has also submitted that the petitioner has relied on only the document which was registered in her favour by the husband. i.e., document No.91/2016. Except that, there are no other documents to support the title of the husband and how the title acquired by the husband of the petitioner. In fact, before the revisional authority also the petitioner is not able to place any material to support her contentions. The learned counsel further brought to the notice of the Court that for the first time the petitioner has filed a pattadar passbook granted in favour of her husband i.e., patta No.887 granted on 09.06.2009. But the said document has not filed either before the appellate authority or before the revisional authority. Only to mislead the Court the present document is filed along with the writ petition. No such 15 DR, J W.P.No.20031 of 2024 pleading before the appellate authority or the revisional authority. Hence, the said document cannot be relied on by this Court. 11. Reply to the said contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is in possession of the subject land and considering the possession and also the document which was registered in favour of the petitioner by the husband, the authorities have considered and mutated the name of the petitioner. As the title is in favour of the petitioner, the respondents ought not to have cancelled the patta granted in favour of the petitioner. The only course available to the 6th respondent is to go to the Civil Court for declaration of his title. 12. Considering the submissions made by both the learned counsel, in fact the petitioner initially has raised an objection with regard to maintainability of the appeal under Section 5(5) of the ROR Act as against the entries made in favour of the petitioner, but the fact remains that the petitioner has not raised any objection before the appellate authority or the said objection has not taken before the revisional authority also. Both the authorities have considered on merits and on records. In fact, even the query raised by this Court with regard to the title of her husband, 16 DR, J W.P.No.20031 of 2024 the petitioner is not able to place any material except saying that the husband has got the subject land by inheritance. In fact on perusal of the documents placed before the appellate authority clearly disclose that the subject land is granted in favour of the grandfather of the 6th respondent and they were in possession and their names were also on record. In the said circumstances, mutation of the petitioner‟s name is contrary to the provisions of the ROR Act. 13. Therefore, this Court finds no illegality or irregularity in the orders passed by the appellate authority as confirmed by the revisional authority. There are no merits to interfere with the said orders. 14. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH Date: 20.11.2025 Ivd 17 DR, J W.P.No.20031 of 2024 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH WRIT PETITION No.20031 of 2024 Dated: 20.11.2025 Ivd