I $ IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI ' WRIT PETITION NO: 6010 OF 2022 Between: Shaik Ghouse Basha, S/o. Imam Saheb, Aged 61 years, Occ- Cultivation, R/o. Nethaji Nagar, Kovur Village and Mandal, S.R.S.P. Nellore District. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. The District Collector, Prakasam District at Ongole. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kandukur Revenue Division, Kandukur, Prakasam District. 4. The Thasildar, Voletivaripalem Mandal, Prakasam District. 5. Kamma Kondaiah, S/o. Nageswara Rao, Aged 55 years, Occ - Cultivation, R/o. Pokuru Village, Voletivaripalem Mandal, Prakasam District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed 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 inaction of the respondents on the petitioner's representations dt. 01.09.2021 and 10.01.2022, submitted for restoration of his name in Online Web Land Revenue Records and record of rights by deleting the name of the 5th respondent, connected to his agriculture landed property of Ac. 1.24 Cents in Sy.No- 68/2 of Chundi Village in Voletivaripalem Mandal of Prakasam District, as illegal, irregular, irrational and violative of the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 and i rules framed there under, violation of Principles of Natural Justice and offends Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the 4th respondent to restore the petitioner's name in all Online Web Land Revenue Records and record of rights connected to his said land. lA NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 4'*^ respondent to consider and decide the petitioner's representations 01.09.2021 and 10.01.2022, submitted for restoration of his name in Online Web Land Revenue Records and record of rights by deleting the name of the 5^^ respondent, connected to his agriculture landed property of Ac. 1.24 Cents in Sy.No- 68/2 of Chundi Village in Voletivaripalem Mandal of Prakasam District, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition. Counsel for the PetitionenSRI. SARATH KUMAR D Counsel for the Respondent No’s. 1 to 4: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.5: M/S NAGA PRAVEENA VANKAYALAPATI The Court made the following ORDER: I ^,J .W(P.m.6010of2022 1 APHC010090202022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 6010/2022 Between: Shaik Ghouse Basha ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.SARATH KUMAR D Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR REVENUE 2.NAGA PRAVEEN VANKAYALAPATI The Court made the following: ORDER: The grievance of the petitioner is non-consideration of his representations dated 01.09.2021 and 10.01.2022 submitted for restoration of his name in online webland revenue records and record of rights by deleting the name of respondent no.5 in relation to the agricultural landed property of ^,J M./cp.!Ko.6010 of2022 1 Ac. 1-24 cents in Survey No.68/2 of Chundi village, Voletivaripalem Mandal, Prakasam District. 2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he is the absolute owner and possessor of the subject land, which devolved upon him from her mother by succession about 30 years ago, which originally belonged to his grandmother, who in her turn succeeded from her ancestors. Eversince the property devolved upon him, the petitioner has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the same and his name was mutated in all web land revenue records as owner and possessor and pattadar and title deed passbooks were issued to him. Owing to health issues, he is staying away from the subject village at Kowur and hence he could not undertake cultivation in the subject land. When the petitioner returned to subject village and verified online revenue records, he noticed that his name was deleted and name of respondent no.5 was recorded as owner, possessor and enjoyer of the subject property. Immediately he submitted a representation dated 01.09.2021 to respondent no.4 requesting to restore his name in online web land revenue records by deleting the name of respondent no.5, which was received on the same day and as there was no response, he made a complaint through spandana on 10.01.2022, however the respondent no.4 did not take any action. The respondent no.4 has no power or authority to .W(P.!Ko.6010of2022 carryout amendments in the revenue records without issuing notice to the person whose name finds place in the records. Thus, the action of respondent no.4 in substituting the name of respondent no.5 with that of the petitioner without issuing any notice is contrary to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short, 'AP ROR Act) against the principles of natural justice. Further, inaction on the part of respondent no.4 on the representation and spandana complaint made by petitioner is illegal and irrational. Hence the writ petition. 3. The contents of the counter-affidavit filed by respondent no.4, in brief, are that as per Fair Land Register and village 10(1), the subject land was classified as patta land and one Shaik Ramtulla Saheb was recorded pattadar and in Form-1 of ROR, name of one Ramtum Beebi, Wife of Ramtulla Saheb was recorded as pattadar and in Form IB, name of the petitioner recorded as pattadar and in the webland , the name of respondent no.5 entered as pattadar for the subject land. Pursuant to receipt of representation, notices dated 17.09.2021 were issued to the petitioner and respondent no.5 to appear before the office along with documents in proof of their title over the subject property and accordingly an enquiry was conducted and in the said enquiry the petitioner stated on par with the contents mentioned in the writ affidavit, whereas respondent no.5 submitted that in as was was .W(P.9^o.6010 of2022 1984 itself Syed Ramthu Beebi sold the subject land to Smt.Ratnagiri Ram Savitramma by way of an agreement, who sold it to Kamma Lakshmi Rajyam and the said Rajyam executed registered under unregistered document document dated 02.11.2019 in favour of her husband i.e. respondent no.5 been cultivating the said land by raising sandalwood plantation and he has and thus both the parties claimed title over the subject land and in the online webland name of respondent no.5 was mutated as pattadar. There is a cloud over the title of respondent no.5 and the revenue authorities cannot decide the title. Further, the petitioner is having alternate remedy of preferring an before the competent authority for cancellation of mutation in favour appeal of respondent no.5, however, instead of doing so, he filed this writ petition. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. The respondent no.5 filed counter-affidavit denying the material of the writ affidavit inter alia contending that if at all the petitioner averments has any grievance he can file appeal under ROR Act before the appropriate and therefore, this writ petition is not maintainable and there is no mutating the name of unofficial authority illegality nor procedural irregularity in respondent and the authorities have foiiowed the procedure before affecting records. There are no merits in the writ petition modifications in the revenue and the same deserves dismissal. • mo M^.(pMo.6010 of2022 4. Heard Ms.Haritha, learned counsel, representing learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Krishna Praneeth, learned Assistant Government Pleader and Sri Naga Praveen Vankayalapati, learned counsel for respondent no.5. 5. Ms.Haritha, learned counsel, while reiterating the contents of the writ affidavit would further contend that change of mutation in the name of respondent no.5 is against the doctrine of Audi Alteram Partem, since no notice as mandated under the provisions of the Act has been issued to the petitioner and despite submission of representation and filing of complaint through spandana for restoration of petitioner's name by deleting the name of respondent no.5, the authorities did not take any steps and hence prayed to direct the respondents to dispose of the representation as well as spandana complaint filed by the petitioner by fixing a time frame. Accordingly, prayed to allow the writ petition. 6. Whereas, Sri Naga Praveen Vankayalapati, learned counsel for respondent no.5, while reiterating the contents of the counter-affidavit would contend that availability of preferring an appeal or revision before the authorities would debar the petitioner from filing this writ petition. The learned counsel would further contend that respondent no.5 filed a suit in O.S.No.580 of 2024 now pending on the file of the Court of the learned V.J^.%0.6010 of2022 6 Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kandukur and in view of pendency of suit filed for declaration, the revenue authorities are debarred from entertaining the claim of the petitioner, during pendency of the said suit in view of section 8 of the A.P.ROR Act. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 7. Whereas, Sri Krishna Praneeth, learned Assistant Government Pleader, while reiterating the contents of the counter-affidavit would further contend that the writ petition is not maintainable since the petitioner, without any justifiable reasons, has surpassed the alternate efficacious remedy of preferring appeal/revision available to him. The writ petition is meritless and the same deserves dismissal and accordingly prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 8. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that taking advantage of mutation of his name, the respondent no.5 may venture to create third party interest over the subject property, which would create complications and ultimately would lead to multifarious civil litigations and hence the interest of the petitioner may be protected by passing appropriate orders. 9. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. % ‘RCJ '.W(P.[N'o.6010 of2022 7 10. The material placed on record and the contentions made by learned counsel for the parties as well as the pleadings would indicate that name of the unofficial respondent was mutated in revenue records. It is brought on record that respondent no.5 filed a suit for declaration vide O.S.No.580 of 2024 and the said suit is now pending on the file of the Court of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge's Court, Kandukur. Therefore, section 8(2) of the A.P.ROR Act debars the revenue authorities from carrying out amendments to the revenue records, during pendency of the civil suit filed for declaration. 11. It is the apprehension of the petitioner that taking advantage of mutation effected in his name, the respondent no.5 may create third party interest over the subject property in the meantime, and hence he may be restrained from doing so, so as to obviate, multifarious litigations over the subject property. 12. In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of, keeping in view the apprehension ventilated by the petitioner, the Tahsildar, Voletivaripalem Mandal, Prakasam District, is directed to keep the subject property in the dispute register, pending disposal of the suit in O.S.No.580 of 2024 pending on the file of the Court of learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kandukur. Subject to outcome of the said suit, the parties can take steps .^(PMo.eOlO of2022 8 before the revenue authorities, in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ■i< !' Sd/- G.HELA NAIDU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. The District Collector, Prakasam District at Ongole. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kandukur Revenue Division, Kandukur, Prakasam District. 4. The Thasildar, Voletivaripalem Mandal, Prakasam District. 5. One CC to SRI. SARATH KUMAR D, Advocate [OPUC] 6. One. CC to M/S NAGA PRAVEENA VANKAYALAPATI, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 8. Three CD Copies PRK HIGH COURT DATED:23/01/2025 ORDER 5 18 MAH 2025 ' ^ . Curreni aeciion ^ ^fes£^SPATC>'«5s^ WP.No.6010 of 2022 DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS