APHC010068392021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY ,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: Between: Namadi Nageswara Rao The State Of Andhra Prdesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. BOKKA SATYANARAYANA KAMLA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. SAI GANGADHAR CHAMARTY 3. GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS (AP) The Court made the following: ORDER The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent authorities, without following the due process of law, changed the entries in the adangal, W.P.No.4133 of 2021 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY ,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 4133/2021 ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Prdesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: BOKKA SATYANARAYANA KAMLA Counsel for the Respondent(S): SAI GANGADHAR CHAMARTY FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS (AP) The Court made the following: The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent authorities, without following the due process of law, changed the entries in the adangal, RC,J W.P.No.4133 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3332] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT(S) The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent authorities, without following the due process of law, changed the entries in the adangal, RC,J W.P.No.4133 of 2021 2 with regard to an extent of Ac.0-13 cents out of Ac.0.51 cents in Survey No.302/1/5 situated in Ananthavaram village, Mummidivaram Mandal, thereby reducing the extent of land of the petitioner from Ac.0-51 cents to Ac.0-38 cents and further forcibly trying to conduct survey by issuing a notice dated 11.02.2021. 2. Heard Sri Bokka Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Krishna Praneeth, learned Assistant Government Pleader, for official respondents and Sri Sai Gangadhar Chamarthy, learned counsel for unofficial respondents. 3. Sri Bokka Satyanarayana, learned counsel, while reiterating the contents of the writ affidavit, would contend that in the year 1930, Rythuvari Patta was granted in favour of petitioner’s grandmother and eversince the family of the petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of the property in an extent of Ac.0-51 cents and subsequent to her death, father of petitioner succeeded the property and he executed unregistered will in favour of his three sons and later the family members of petitioner executed settlement deed setting the said property in favour of the petitioner and accordingly his name was incorporated for an extent of Ac.0-51 cents in all RC,J W.P.No.4133 of 2021 3 the revenue records. Thereafter, the VRO came to the subject property and threatened the petitioner to vacate from an extent of Ac.0-13 cents out of Ac.0-51 cents stating that the said land of Ac.0-13 cents was registered in favour of unofficial respondents and it came to light that out of Ac.0-51 cents , the revenue authorities have mutated the name of unofficial respondents in respect of Ac.0-13 cents and reduced the extent held by petitioner to Ac.0-38 cents and moreover the village surveyor issued notice to the petitioner on 11.02.2021 for the purpose of conducting survey of the land and though the petitioner submitted his objections stating that without his application, his land cannot be surveyed, the authorities are trying to conduct survey forcibly. The respondents did not follow the procedure while reducing the extent held by him and for incorporating the name of unofficial respondents in the revenue records. Therefore, the land deleted from the revenue records of the petitioners has to be restored and the authorities are to be estopped from conducting survey. Accordingly, prayed to allow the writ petition. 4. Sri Krishna Praneeth, learned Assistant Government Pleader, on counter of respondent no.5, submitted that the revenue authorities after issuing Form-VIII notice as required by law, have mutated the names of RC,J W.P.No.4133 of 2021 4 unofficial respondents in the revenue records and therefore, there is no violation of procedure as alleged by the petitioner. There is neither illegality nor procedural irregularity in mutating the names of unofficial respondents. There are no merits in the writ petition and the same deserves dismissal. 5. Sri Sai Gangadhar Chamarthy, learned counsel for unofficial respondents, on counter, contended that the revenue authorities, upon considering the material made available to them have rightly incorporated names of unofficial respondents in revenue records after following the procedure contemplated under law and if the petitioner has any grievance, he has to approach the concerned Revenue Divisional Officer and file an appeal or revision before the Joint Collector and without availing the said remedies the petitioner straight away filed this writ petition and therefore, this writ petition is not maintainable. The learned counsel would further contend that there are dispute questions of facts and this court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot decide such disputed questions. Therefore, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. RC,J W.P.No.4133 of 2021 5 7. There is no dispute that the name of the petitioner was mutated in revenue records for an extent of Ac.0-51 cents of land. It is also not in dispute that the names of unofficial respondents were mutated for an extent of Ac.0-04 cents, Ac.0-04 cents and Ac.0-05 cents (Ac.0-13 cents) from out of the above extent of Ac.0-51 cents and therefore, the land held by petitioner was reduced from Ac.0-51 cents to Ac.0-38 cents. Though the official respondents plead in their counter that notice in Form-VIII was sent to the petitioner before making modification of entries in the revenue records, no material whatsoever has been placed on record to show that the said Form- VIII notice has been sent and served on the petitioner. Section-5 of the A.P.ROR Act, 1971 and A.P.ROR Rules, 1989 prescribed the procedure to be followed before making amendments to revenue records such as issuing notices to the persons whose names find place in the revenue records. Such a procedure has not been followed in the instant case before incorporating the names of unofficial respondents for some of the extent of the land shown in the name of the petitioner. Therefore, there is violation of the procedure to be followed and the same makes the action of the respondents illegal and arbitrary. RC,J W.P.No.4133 of 2021 6 8. In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of and the respondent authorities are directed to restore the extent of the land previously held by the petitioner before modification of the entries and delete the names of unofficial respondents from revenue records. However, the unofficial respondents are at liberty to pursue their remedies before appropriate forum/authorities for redressal of their grievance and this order would not deter the authorities from making amendments by following the procedure contemplated under law. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI RR