I y APHC010096982021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 5518 OF 2021 Between: Poluka Gurusekhar Reddy, S/o Late Gurvi Reddy, aged about 52 years, Occ- Cultivation, R/o Door No. 1/308, Bollavaram Village, Proddatur Mandal, YSR Kadapa District. ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by it's Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, rep. by it's PrI. Secretary, Secretariat, Velagapudi Village, Guntur District. 2. The District Collector, YSR Kadapa District, Kadapa. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kadapa, YSR Kadapa District. 4. The Tahsildar, Mylavaram Mandal, YSR Kadapa District. 5. Poluka Subamma, W/o Late Gurvi Reddy aged about 77 years, Occ- Cultivation, R/o Door No. 1/308, Bollavaram Village, Proddatur Mandal, YSR Kadapa District. 6. Dudekula Pedha Khadarayya, S/o Pedha Kadarayya, aged about 35 years, Occ, Cultivation, R/o Door No. 1/171B, Narjampalli Village, Mylavaram Mandal, YSR Kadapa. 7. Dudekula Chinna Khadarayya, S/o Pedha Khadar, aged about 35 years, Occ, Cultivation, R/o Door No. 1/171, Narjampalli Village, Mylavaram Mandal, YSR Kadapa. ...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 an appropriate Writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of respondents removing the name of petitioner and mutating the name of the respondent No. 5 in the revenue records in respect of lands admeasuring Ac. 2.98 cents situated in survey Nos. 171-14, 171-15A, 171-5B, 171-15B, 171-15C, 171-16 of Torrivemula Village, Mylavaram Mandal, YSR Kadapa District without giving notice to the petitioner and not following the procedure as contemplated under A.P. rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 and contrary to Circular No. L.R.II/ROR-II/712B/2015 dt.12-09-2017 of CCLA, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and contrary to the Law, and to pass. lA NO: 1 OF 2021 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 DIRECT the respondents, to consider the representation dated 06-01-2021 for cancellation of entries in the name of 5th respondent in respect of lands admeasuring Ac. 2.98 cents situated in survey Nos. 171-14, 171-15A, 171-5B, 171-15B, 171-15C, 171-16 of Torrivemula Village, Mylavaram Mandal, YSR Kadapa District, by suspending the entries in respect of lands admeasuring Ac. 2.98 cents situated in survey Nos. 171-14, 171-15A, 171-5B, 171-15B, 171-15C, 171-16 of Torrivemula Village, Mylavaram Mandal, YSR Kadapa District, pending disposal of the Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI T NAGARJUNA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 4: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondents No.5 to 7: Ms. B V APARNA LAKSHMI The Court made the following Order: APHC010096982021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY.THE NINTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE [3505] > PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 5518/2021 Between: 1.POLUKA GURUSEKHAR REDDY, S/0 LATE GURVI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCC- CULTIVATION, R/0 DOOR NO. 1/308, BOLLAVARAM VILLAGE, PRODDATUR MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY IT'S PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, REP. BY IT'S PRL. SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI VILLAGE, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT, KADAPA. 3.THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KADAPA, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. 4.THE TAHSILDAR, MYLAVARAM MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. 5.POLUKA SUBAMMA, W/0 LATE GURVI REDDY AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, OCC- CULTIVATION, R/0 DOOR NO. 1/308, BOLLAVARAM VILLAGE, PRODDATUR MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. 2 6 DUDEKULA PEDHA KHADARAYYA, S/0 PEDHA KADARAYYA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC, CULTIVATION, R/0 DOOR NO. 1/171B, NARJAMPALLl VILLAGE, MYLAVARAM MANDAL, YSR KADAPA. DUDEKULA CHINNA KHADARAYYA, S/0 PEDHA KHADAR, ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC, CULTIVATION, R/0 DOOR NARJAMPALLl VILLAGE, MYLAVARAM MANDAL, i 7. AGED NO. 1/171, YSR KADAPA. ...RESPONDENT(S); under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that Petition . in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of respondents removing the name of petitioner and mutating the name of the respondent No. 5 in the revenue records of lands admeasuring Ac. 2.98 cents situated in survey Nos. 171-5B, 171-15B, 171-15C, 171-16 of Torrivemula ^1 Mandal, YSR Kadapa District without giving notice and not following the procedure as contemplated under in respect 171-14, 171-15A Village, Mylavaram to the petitioner; A.P. rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act. 1971 and contrary to Circular No, LR.I1/ROR-11/712B/2015 dt.12-09-2017 of CCIA, as violative of principles of natural justice and illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the Law, and to pass lA NO: 1 OF 2021 that in the under Section 151 CPC praying Petition • ■ circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to DIRECT the respondents, to dated 06-01-2021 for cancellation of consider the representation entries in the name of 5th respondent in respect of lands admeasuring Ac. 2.98 cents situated in survey Nos. 171-14, 171-15A, 171-5B, 171- 15B 171-15C, 171"'16 of Torrivemula Village, Mylavaram Mandal, YSR Kadapa District, by suspending the entries in respect of lands admeasuring Ac. 2.98 cents situated in survey Nos. 171-14, 171-15A, 171-5B, 171-15B, 171-15C, 171-16 of Torrivemula Village, Mylavaram Mandal, YSR Kadapa District, pending disposal of the Writ Petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 3 ^ ' f 1.T NAGARJUNA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR REVENUE 2.B VAPARNA LAKSHMI 4 The Court made the following order: The present writ petition is filed questioning action of the 4'*^ respondent in mutating the name of the 5*^^ respondent by deleting the name of the petitioner in respect of land admeasuring an extent of Ac.2.98 cents situated in Sy.Nos.171-14, 171-15A, 171-5B, 171-15B, 171-15C, 171-16 of Torrivemula Village, Mylavaram Mandal, YSR Kadapa District, without issuing any notice to the petitioner and without following the procedure contemplated under Act 26 of 1971. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the subject land to an extent of Ac.3.38 cents, belongs to his family. In the year 1992, his father passed away, and as on the date of his death, the family indebted to several persons. In order to discharge the said debts, the family members, including the 5 executed settlement agreement dated 18.10.2005, in favour of the petitioner, whereunder the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.3.38 cents was given to the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the 4^*^ respondent with the said agreement dated 18.10.2005, executed by his family members and got mutated his name in the revenue records. It is further case that, he is in possession and enjoyment of the said property until a th respondent. 5 portion of land, admeasuring an extent of Ac.2.13 cents in Sy.No.171-14 and 171-16, was alienated in favor of one Smt. Vundela.Obulamma through registered sale deed dated th 31.08.2020. It is further case of the petitioner that the 5 respondent, in collusion with the petitioner’s brother and with an intention to grab the subject land, got her name mutated in revenue records in respect of subject land. It is further stated that, while mutating the name of the 5*^ respondent no notice was issued to the petitioner. Thereafter, the 5^^ respondent executed two sale deeds in favor of respondent Nos.6 & 7. Having come to know about the same, the petitioner made a representation dated 06.01.2021, to the Tahsildar, respondent, seeking to rectify the said mistake. When there was no action, the present writ petition is filed. On the other hand, the respondent Nos.5 to 7 filed counter affidavit stating that, the 5*^ respondent made a representation dated 12.06.2020, to the 4**^ respondent, informing that the writ petitioner got illegally mutated his name in revenue records over the lands in dispute. In turn, the 4^'" respondent issued notices to the writ petitioner, asking him to attend for enquiry, despite receipt of the notices, the petitioner did not appear before the 4 3. th f 6 respondent. Accordingly, the name of the 5*^ respondent was entered into the revenue records. It is further stated that the 4*'^ respondent passed order on 07.11.2020 to that effect and also changed entries in web land online record by duly incorporating the name of the respondent. It is further case of the respondent Nos.5 to 7 that, the alleged family settlement agreement dated 18.10.2005 said to have been executed by the respondent and their family members is concocted and fabricated one, therefore reliance cannot be placed on the same. It is further stated that, the alleged settlement agreement dated 18.10.2005, is unregistered one and therefore the title cannot be transferred through the said document. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that, in order to defeat the rights of the 5 respondent, the petitioner has alienated an extent of Ac.2.13 cents in favor of Smt. Vundela.Obulamma through registered sale deed dated 31.08.2020. With the above pleadings the respondents prayed to dismiss the writ petition. th 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and learned for counsel respondent Nos.5 to 7. 5. Perused the material available on record. 7 6. It is the case of the petitioner that, based on the settlement agreement said to have been executed by the respondent and the family members of the writ petitioner, his name was mutated in revenue records over the subject land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.3.38 cents. Subsequently, the petitioner alienated an extent of Ac.2.13 cents in favour of Smt. Vundela.Obulamma. Having parted away his right to an extent of Ac.2.13 cents out of total extent of Ac.3.38 cents, for the reasons best know to the petitioner, he filed the present writ petition for the entire extent of Ac.3.38 cents, though he does not have right over the same. At any rate the question of making a representation to the 4 respondent does not arise inasmuch as, if at all the petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the said authority in mutating the name of respondent Nos.5 to 7, remedies are available under Act 26 of 1971. Further, the 4^*^ respondent is not conferred with the power of review under the said Act. Therefore, the question of considering the said representation cannot be allowed. Further, it th is stated that, before mutating the name of the respondent Nos.6 & 7, the petitioner was not put on notice. In this connection, it is pertinent to mention that, their names were mutated pursuant to registered sale deeds executed by respondent No.5. In view thereof, the respondent Nos.6 & 7 have acquired right over the 8 subject property and therefore, the application filed by them considered by the respondent. As already stated supra, the alleged settlement agreement dated 18.10.2005 has no legal sanctity and therefore, the petitioner cannot rely on the was same. 7. It is not out of place to mention that, though it is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that the 5**^ respondent alienated the subject property in favour of respondent Nos.6 & 7 by virtue, of registered sale deeds vide document Nos.2996 & 2997 of 2020, dated 30.10.2020, the petitioner did not take any action to set aside the said sale deeds. The present writ petition was filed in the year 2021 and till date he has not taken any action against the execution of the said sale deeds in favour of respondent Nos.6 & 7. The silence on the part of the petitioner speaks volumes in the matter. f 8. For the reasons recorded supra, this Court is not inclined to grant any relief in the present writ petition and accordingly the same is dismissed. It is needless to mention that, the petitioner is at liberty to agitate his rights over the land in dispute before the competent civil court in accordance with law, if he is so advised. There shall be no order as to costs. 9 As a sequel, pending applications if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- K. TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. OneCCto Sri T Nagarjuna Reddy, Advocate 2. TwoCCsto GP for REVENUE [OPUC] High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 3. One CC to Ms. B V Aparna Lakshmi, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies VNA HIGH COURT DATED:09/07/2025 ORDER WP NO. 5518 OF 2021 ^ 0 2 AUG 2025 K Trent Sectio T DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS