APHC010073942021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 4300 AND 4299 OF 2021 WRIT PETITION NO: 4300 OF 2021 Between: Addanki Subramanya Achari, S/o. late Sri Ramulu, Aged about 55 years, R/o. Old Damavaripalem, Addanki. ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj Department, A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District. 2. The District Collector, Prakasam District, Ongole. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Addanki, Prakasam District. 4. The Tahsildar, Addanki, Prakasam District. 5. Addanki Parvathanjaneyulu, S/o. Late Sri Ramulu, Aged about 60 years, R/o. Old Damavaripalem, Addanki. ...Respondents 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 to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the wrong entries made by the respondent in the 1B register in favour of the 5*^ respondent in respect of Ac. 0.46 cents in Sy.No. 540 instead of showing , s rt? Ac. 0.05 Sy.No. 68/1 of Addanki Nagar Panchayat contrary to the provisions of A.P Ac. 0.29 cents and also iin respect of Ac. 0.02 cents in (North Addanki), Prakasam District Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbook Act, 1971 and rules made thereunder, jurisdiction and contrary to the pri as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and principles of natural justice without jA NO: 1 OF ?n9i Petition under Section 151 in the affidavit filed i suspend the CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in support of the petition, the High Court wrong entries made i may be pleased to resnnnH^n, ■ favour of the S'" respondent in respect of Ar n/in ^ . me o 0 29 t Sy.No. 540 instead of showing Ac 0.29 cents and also in respect of Ac. 0.02 2 cents in Sy.No. 204, Ac. 0.15 in Sy.No. 68/1 of Addanki Nagar contrary to the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar and rules made thereunder cents in Sy.No. 167/1 and Ac. 0.05 cents i Panchayat, Prakasam District Passbook Act, 1971 pending disposal of the above writ petition jA NO: 1 OF 9not: Between; Addanki Parvathanjaneyulu, S/o. Old Damavaripalem, Addanki. Late Sri Ramulu, Aged about 60 years, R/o. ...Petitioner/5*'' Respondent AND years, R/o. Old Damavaripalem, Addanki Aged about 55 •■■RespondentWrit Petitioner a. he State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary anchayat Raj Department, A.P Secretariat VpI w District. ’ Velagapudi, Guntur 3. The District Collector, Prakasam District, Ongole. 4. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Addanki, Prakasam District. 5. The Tahsildar, Addanki, Prakasam District. ...Respondents/Respondent No.1 to 4 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 to vacate the interim suspension orders, dated 03-03-2021 passed by this Hon'ble Court in I.A. No.1 of 2021 in Writ Petition No. 4300 of 2021 and to dismiss the W.P. No. 4300 of 2021 with exemplary costs Counsel for the Petitioner; SRI MRS SRlNiVAS Counsel for the Respondent No.1; GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV Counsel for the Respondents No.2 to 4: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI SS RAMA KRISHNA PRASAD APHC010073962021 WRIT PETITION NO: 4299 OF 2021 Between: Addanki Subramanya Achari, S/o. late Sri Ramulu, Aged about 55 years. R/o. Old Damavaripalem, Addanki. ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj Department. A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District. 2. Addanki Nagar Panchayat, Represented by its Commissioner, Addanki. (R2 C.T.is Amended as per C.O.dt.01/11/21.) 3. Addanki Parvathanjaneyulu, S/o. I years, R/o. Old Damavaripalem, Addanki. Late Sri Ramulu, Aged about 60 ...Respondents Petition under Article circumstances stated i 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS petitioner in to declare the illegal deletion respect of house bearing door of the name of the No. 19-198 with No.21-21 with No. 19-5 with respondent Gram Panchayat as illenaj u- Without following due g . arbitrary, unjust and without jurisdiction and principles of natural justice No.1147008136, new assessment assessment assessment Addanki Nagar process of law, contrary to the house bearing door No.1147000875 new and house bearing door No, 1147008531 by the 2"^^ Gram Panchayat without new jA NO: 1 OF 9no.f Petition under Section 151 in the affidavit filed i direct the 2""' CPC praying that in the circumstances stated =npport of the petition, the High Court assessment No.1147008136 assessment No.1147000875 assessment No.1147008531, may be pleased to petitioner 19-198 with No.21-21 with No. 19-5 with writ petition new house bearing door and house bearing door pending disposal of the above ■■ SRI M R S SRINIVAS No.1: GP FOR PANCHAYAT new new Counsel for the Petitioner: Counsei for the Respondent RAJ RURAL Municipal°tLsfn'R%^a‘la^rma°Reg®n''^'^^ Counsel for the Respondent The Court made the rayana SC For No.3: SRI SS RAMA KRISHNA following Common PRASAD order: APHC010073942021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] FRIDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 4300 OF 2021 Between: ...PETITIONER Addanki Subramanya Achari, AND ...RESPONDENT(S) The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.M RS SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR REVENUE 2.GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 3.SS RAMA KRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 4299 OF 2021 Between: ...PETITIONER Addanki Subramanya Achari AND ...RESPONDENT(S) State of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.M RS SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent(S): I.Gudapati Lakshminarayana SC For Municipalities Region 2.GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL 3.SS RAMA KRISHNA PRASAD The Court made the following: in Rayalaseema DEV THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 4300 OF 2021 AND WRIT PETITION NO: 4299 OF 2021 COMMON ORDER:- The W.P.No. 4300 of 2021 is filed questioning the wrong entries made by the Respondent No.4 in 1-B Register in favour of the Respondent No.5 in respect of Ac. 0.46 cents in Sy.No.540 instead of showing Ac. 0.29 cents and also in respect of Ac. 0.02 Yz cents in Sy.No.204, Ac. 0.15 cents in Sy.No.167/1 and Ac. 0.05 cents in Sy.No. 68/1 of Addanki Nagar Panchayat, (North Addanki), Prakasam District as illegal and arbitrary. The W.P.No. 4299 of 2021 is:filed questioning the illegal deletion of the name of the Petitioner in respect of jibuse bearing D.No.19-198 with new Assessment No.1147008136, House bearing D.No. 19-5 with new Assessment No.1147008531 by the Respondent No.2 Gram Panchayat, Addanki Nagar Gram Panchayat without any notice and without following due process of law as illegal and arbitrary. 2. As both Writ Petitions arise out of the same issue, as such they are being disposed of by way of this Common Order. W.P.No.4299 of 2021 is taken as leading case for the sake of convenience. 3. The facts leading for filing the W.P.No.4299 of 2021 are as follows; The Petitioner claims to be the absolute owner and possessor of houses bearing D.Nos. 19-198, 21-21 and 19-5 situated in Addanki Nagar Gram Panchayat. It is stated that the properties were partitioned among the father of the Petitioner late Addanki Sriramulu, the Petitioner and his brothers and sisters under a Registered Partition Deed dated 06.08.1997. As per the said partition, ‘A’ schedule property was fallen to the share of deceased father of the petitioner. While so a Will dated 29.04.2005 was executed by father of the Petitioner in respect of ‘A’ schedule property covered by the said Partition Deed. As per the said Will. ‘C’ schedule property covered by a Registered Partition dated 06.08.1997 was fallen to the Petitioner. 4. After the demise of his father, .the name of the Petitioner was duly mutated in all concerned records and the Petitioner has been paying property tax from the year 2010. Subsequently, a suit in O.S.No. 4 of 2017 was filed by brothers of the Petitioners claiming that the father of the executed another Will, dated 29.04.2005 contrary to the earlier Will by father of the Petitioner and an unregistered Partition Deed. Petitioner had executed 5. In that scenario, the Petitioner had filed a suit in O.S.No. 4 of 2017 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Addanki for declaration of right pursuant to the Will dated 29.04.2005 and for consequential injunction. The said suit is pending. However, the cause for filing the Writ Petition is that and title. Respondent No.3 by influencing the Revenue Authorities, got the house properties, got deleted the name of Petitioner and included the deceased father without any notice to the Petitioner deletion of the name of the Petitioner name of or any enquiry. As the was not being re-considered inspite of legal notices dated 13.02.2017 and 11:10.2017, the present Writ Petitions came to be filed. 6. The Respondents 3 and 5 filed Counter-Affidavit denying the Will executed by father of the Petitioner. It is stated that PWs 1 and 2 were cross examined on 11.03.2025 and the suit was posted for further evidence of the Plaintiff on 19.03.2025. As the suit was at evidence stage, it would not be appropriate to delete the entries standing in the name of deceased father as on date. It is also contended that the Petitioner never in possession of the property and father has sold away certain properties to third parties and plea of oral partition on 27.06.2005 were also raised in the Counter-Affidavit. 7. The Respondent No.2 i.e Commissioner of the Respondent/ Panchayat would contend that the suit is pending, which is inclusive of property relating to the property in question, would not be appropriate to change the name of the Petitioner af this juncture, as the suit is in advanced stage of adjudication. 8. Learned Standing Counsel for the official Respondents also expressed similar view stating that unless the suit is resolved, mutation in favour of the Petitioner would be faulted for. 9. Having heard the respective counsel, this Court is of the opinion that the original mutation in favour of the Petitioner is on the basis of unregistered Will does not appear after notice issued to all the stakeholders’ i.e defendants in O.S.No.4 of 2017. Further, the Petitioner is unable to produce any order of the competent authority authorizing inclusion of the name of Petitioner in the Gram Panchayat Property Tax Register. Similar is the issue with regard to mutation in favour of Respondent No.5 in the revenue records. The entries were altered in the revenue records contrary to Rule 9(1) of A.P.Rights in land and Pattadar Pass Book Rules, 1989. In, the absence of an enabling order, the mutation in favour of the Petitioner does not appear to be in consonance with the principles of natural justice. 10. As rightly contended by learned Standing Counsel for the official Respondents, the Will relied on by the Petitioner dated 29.04.2005 requires to be established in a civil suit filed by the Petitioner by displacing the doubts regarding the execution of the Will dated 29.04.2005. Similar is the case of the Respondents regarding the unregistered Partition Deed dated 06.08.1997 unless this document stands established, the Respondents cannot claim absolute rights. The entries in the property tax as well as revenue entries are dependent on the outcome of the civil suit. and 11. The question now is whose names should be included pending outcome of the civil suit and ensure that further litigation is not created. In the considered opinion of this Court, it would be appropriate to delete the name of the Petitioner as well as the contesting Respondent i.e present Revenue Authorities and include the name of father of the Petitioner, who is erstwhile owner of the property. Further, the parties are entitled to seek relief to change the name in the concerned Register subject to outcome of the records as well as Gram Panchayat Property Tax suit. 12. With the above discussion, costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous closed. the Writ Petitions are disposed of. No applications pending, if any, shall stand . Sd/- N NAGAR/IMA / ASSISTANT REGj^RAR / //TRUE COPY// \ \ SECTTON OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary, state of Andhra Pradesh Department, A.P. Secretariat, 2. The District Collector, Prakasam J- The Revenue Divisional Officer, 4. TheTahsildar, Addanki 5. The Commissioner, Panchayat Raj Velagapudi, Guntur District. District, Ongole. Addanki, Prakasam District. Prakasam District. ^'^'^anki Nagar Panchayat, Addanki ■ SRI M R S SRINIVAS Advocate [OPUCJ 7. Two CCS to GP FOR REVENUE High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT, ». T.. oc. „ or roo p«cha,„ pa, popao „„ ™Of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 10 on" ro r PRASAD Advocate [OPUC, ■ One CC to SRI GUDAPATI LAKSHMI NARAYANA Sta h' for Municipalities in Rayaiaseema Region [OPUC] ' 11.TWO CD Copies gsg HIGH COURT DATED: 11/07/2025 COMMON ORDER WP NO. 4300 AND 4299 OF 2021 DISPOSING THE WP’S WITHOUT COSTS