APHC010111772025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3505] THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 6089/2025 Between: Talari Ramulamma ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. INENI VENKATA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following order: 1. The petitioner claims that she is the owner of land admeasuring an extent of Ac.1.63 ¾ cents in Sy.No.533/2 of Locherla Village, Kothachervu Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District. It is her case that initially the said property was purchased by her father by virtue of registered sale deed vide document No.1289 dated 02.08.1965. It is further case of the petitioner that she requested the respondents to mutate her name in revenue records and to issue pattadar pass book and title deed. The 3rd respondent accordingly issued pattadar passbook in respect of land to an extent of Ac.0.41 cents out of the total extent of Ac.1.63 ¾ cents in Sy.No.533-2. When she approached the 4th respondent as to why the entire extent is not mutated in her favour, the 4th respondent informed that inadvertently it was issued to an extent of Ac.0.41 cents and promised that he will rectify the revenue records for the total extent of Ac.1.63 ¾ cents. 2. It is further case of the petitioner that though pattadar passbook was issued to an extent of Ac.0.41 cents out of total extent of Ac.1.63 ¾ cents, curiously the 4th respondent mutated name of the petitioner was shown to an extent of Ac.0.36 cents in revenue records i.e., Form-1(B) and Adangals. In those circumstances, the petitioner claims that she filed representation dated 14.10.2024 to the 4th respondent seeking to mutate her name in respect of entire extent of Ac.1.63 ¾ cents in Sy.No.533- 2 of Locherla Village. Despite the said representation, no action was initiated by the 4th respondent and therefore, she preferred the present writ petition. 3. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue would submit that though the petitioner claims that she made a representation, nothing is placed on record to show that, the said representation was actually made. Further, he would submit that unless an application under Form-6A of ROR Act is made, the same cannot be processed. 4. Taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court feels it is appropriate to dispose of the present writ petition directing the petitioner to submit application in Form-6A of ROR Act, within a period of four (04) weeks, from the date of receipt of copy of this order and upon such filing of application, the 4th respondent is further directed to dispose of the same in accordance with law. 5. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________ JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR Dt.13.03.2025 JLV 393 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR W.P.No.6089 of 2025 Date: 13.03.2025 JLV