APHC010091422020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: Between: Godhapu Srinivasulu State of Andhra Pradesh and others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. Nimmagadda Revathi Counsel for the Respondents: 1. GP for Revenue (AP) The Court made the following order: Challenging the proceedings of the petitioner’s name and incorporating the name of the 5 Land Adangal and Record of Rights landed property, in an extent Lakshmakkapalli Revenue Village of Tarlapadu Mandal in Prakasam District without issuing notice to the petitioner and to delete the name of the 5 petitioner in the revenue records and in the webland adangal. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 5755/2020 ...Petitioner AND State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following order: Challenging the proceedings of the 4th respondent in deleting s name and incorporating the name of the 5th respondent in Web Land Adangal and Record of Rights in respect of petitioner’s agricultural an extent of Ac.1.26 cents situated in Sy Lakshmakkapalli Revenue Village of Tarlapadu Mandal in Prakasam District the petitioner and consequently sought for a direction to delete the name of the 5th respondent and incorporate the name of petitioner in the revenue records and in the webland adangal. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3458] THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA ...Petitioner ...Respondents respondent in deleting respondent in Web s agricultural Sy.No.88/4B Lakshmakkapalli Revenue Village of Tarlapadu Mandal in Prakasam District, consequently sought for a direction the name of the 2 KM,J W.P.No.5755 of 2020 2. Heard Smt. Nimmagadda Revathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents. 3. It is contended by the petitioner that he is the absolute owner of the subject property, which is an extent of Ac.1.26 cents situated in Sy.No.88/4B, Lakshmakkapalli Revenue Village, Tarlapadu Mandal, Prakasam District. The petitioner's mother elder sister is alleged to have settled the property in favor of the petitioner. The 4th respondent initially mutated the petitioner's name in the revenue records and issued Pattadar passbooks. However, the 4th respondent subsequently deleted the petitioner's name and incorporated the name of the 5th respondent. 4. The 4th respondent filed a counter affidavit stating that, as per the Webland Adangal, one Smt. Tanugundala Rama Lakshamma is the pattadar of the land to an extent of Ac.1.26 cents, and that she has inherited the property from her husband, Tanugundala Bala Kotireddy. After his lifetime, the wife of Tanugundala Bala Kotireddy (the petitioner's mother's elder sister) approached the revenue authorities for issuance of house site pattas. 5. The Tahsildar, vide order dated 14.06.2016, mutated the names of Rama Lakshamma in respect of the lands in an extent of Ac.0.99 cents in Sy.No.101/4, Ac.0.50 cents in Sy.No.71/4C, Ac.1.26 cents in Sy.No.88/4B, Ac.0.24 cents in Sy.No.97/3B, and Ac.0.43 cents in Sy.No.97/7B. 3 KM,J W.P.No.5755 of 2020 6. It is stated that, pursuant to the application made by Chinna Koti Reddy, the names existing in the revenue records were removed, and the names of unofficial respondents were incorporated. The Tahsildar stated that the said proceedings were issued after issuance of notice to the petitioner. 7. It is contended that the land purchased by the 5th respondent, Tanugundala China Koti Reddy, in the year 1967, was also transferred in the name of Rama Lakshamma. Therefore, an application for mutation was filed on 12.04.2018. 8. The relevant portion in the counter affidavit is extracted hereunder: “…..that Late Tanugundala Kesi Reddy of Lakshamakkapalli village of Tarlupadu Mandal, Prakasam District has five sons Viz., 1. Tanugundala Koti Reddy, 2. Balakotireddy, 3. Pedda Bali Reddy 4. Chinna Bali Reddy and 5. Chinna Koti Reddy. While so No.1 went to adoption ("Dattu") to Sivarampuram village of Markapur Mandal leaving his share of property in the joint family. Being the next head of the family No.2 is managing the family and all the lands are entered in the name of No.2. While so subsequently 3, and 4 sons died. Later No.2 and No.5 are living separately with their families. But the lands are still in the name of No.2 Balakoti Reddy. There was no partition between the family members. During the year 2014 No.2 Balakoti Reddy died. After demise of the No.2 Bala koti Reddy the landed property registered in his name was transferred to his wife Ramalakshamma. In this context the Sy.No.88/4B measuring an extent Ac.1.26 which was purchased by No.5 Tanugundala Chinna Koti Reddy during the year 1967 through Regd. Doc.No.594/1967 dated: 15.07.1967 was also 4 KM,J W.P.No.5755 of 2020 transferred in the name of Rama Lakshamma w/o late Bala Koti Reddy…...” 9. The Tahsildar, along with the counter affidavit, has annexed copies of notices alleged to have been issued in the case before mutating the name of the 5th respondent. A perusal of the same would indicate that they are in the form of a public notice in Form No.8, under Rule 9(1) of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Rules, 1989. Although the notice was served on the unofficial respondents, no appearance was entered on their behalf. 10. Considering the rival submissions, the provisions of Section 5(3), which are relevant at this point in time, deal as follows: “(3) The Mandal Revenue Officer shall, before carrying out any amendment in the record of rights under sub-section (1) or sub- section (2) issue a 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 and to any other persons whom he has reason to believe to be interested therein or affected thereby to show cause within the period specified therein as to why the amendment should not be carried out. A copy of the amendment and the notice aforesaid shall also be published in such manner as may be prescribed. The Mandal Revenue Officer shall consider every objection made in that behalf and after making such enquiry as may be prescribed pass such order in relation thereto as he deems fit.” 11. Section 5(3) contemplates issuance of notice to the affected party, before carrying out any amendments to the entries already made in the 5 KM,J W.P.No.5755 of 2020 revenue records, the same indicates that notice should be addressed to the person concerned, rather than a public notice. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the decision of this Court in the case of Chinnam Pandurangam S/o. Late Maniah Vs. The Mandal Revenue Officer1, wherein it was held as follows: “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 Rule 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.” 13. Placing reliance on the above decision, the proceedings of the 4th respondent-Tahsildar, deleting the name of the petitioner and incorporating the name of the 5th respondent in the Webland Adangal, are set aside. The 4th respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders after issuing notices to both the petitioner and the unofficial respondents within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of this order. 1 2007 (6) ALD 248 6 KM,J W.P.No.5755 of 2020 14. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed. _______________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA Date: 20.02.2025 BSK 7 KM,J W.P.No.5755 of 2020 157 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 5755/2020 Date: 20.02.2025 BSK