APHC010436442026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] TUESDAY, THE 15th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 24188/2026 Between: 1. B KRISHNA REDDY, S/O LATE BODI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, RESIDING AT PALLAPULNDLU VILLAGE, ERRAMARAJUPALLE POST, KARVETINAGARAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 522238 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CHITTOOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. - 517002 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, NAGARI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 517590 4. THE TAHSILDAR, KARVETINAGARAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 517582 5. B KRISHNA REDDY, S/O LATE B. VENKATA REDDY, RESIDENT OF PALLAPULNDLU VILLAGE, ERRAMARAJUPALLE POST, KARVETINAGARAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. - 517582 ... PETITIONERS ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 toissue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents especially the action of the Respondent No.3 herein in allowing the appeal filed by the respondent no.5 by treating the same as appeal vide proceedings in D. Dis. C(F)/830/2025 dated 28-03-2026 whereby the Respondent No.3 herein directed the Respondent No.4 to delete the name of the petitioner herein from the Revenue records and to mutate the name of the Respondent No.5 and further directing the Respondent No.4 to cancel the existing Pattadar Passbooks, without issuing any notice and without there being any jurisdiction as per se being illegal, arbitrary, unfair, irrational, violative of Principles of Natural Justice apart from being violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and contrary to the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Rights in land and Pattadar pass book Act, 1971 and Rules made thereunder and consequently set aside the proceedings in D. Dis. C(F)/830/2025 dated 28- 03-2026 passed by the Respondent No.3 herein as the same suffers from inherent lack of jurisdiction IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 suspend the Orders passed by the Respondent No.3 herein in proceedings vide D. Dis. C(F)/830/2025 dated 28-03-2026pending disposal of the writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V NITESH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. G L NAGESWAR RAO The Court made the following: ORDER Heard Sri Karthik, learned counsel representing Sri V.Nitesh, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri Chandra Sekhar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, for the respondents 1 to 4 Sri G.L.Nageswara Rao, learned counsel for the 5th respondent. 2. Assailing the proceedings in D.Dis.C(F)/830/2025, dated 28.03.2026 (Ex.P1) issued by the 3rd respondent, the above writ petition is filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the absolute owner of an extent of Ac.0.79½ cents in S.No.31/4 of Gajanki village, Karvetinagar Mandal, Chittoor District, having got it by way of partition. The name of the petitioner was updated in the records of rights, and a pattadar pass book was issued by the 4th respondent. Be that as it may, the 5th respondent is claiming an extent of Ac.0.50 cents in S.No.31/4 and filed an application before the 3rd respondent, who, in turn, treated the same as an appeal filed under Section 5 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short “the Act”). He would submit that no notice was issued to the petitioner during the enquiry said to have been conducted by the 3rd respondent and eventually, Ex.P1 order came to be passed. He would also submit that without there being any order of the Tahsildar, no appeal would lie under Section 5(4) of the Act and the said aspect was not considered by the 3rd respondent. 4. Sri G.L.Nageswara Rao, learned counsel for the 5th respondent, would fairly submit that a perusal of Ex.P1 order does not indicate issuance of notice to the petitioner. With regard to the jurisdiction of the 3rd respondent-RDO, he would submit that the 3rd respondent has jurisdiction under Section 5 of the Act. 5. Sri Chandra Sekhar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, for the respondents 1 to 4, would submit that a perusal of Ex.P1 order does not indicate issuance of notice to the petitioner during the enquiry. 6. Thus, as seen from the order dated 28.03.2026 (Ex.P1), the 3rd respondent relied upon the report filed by the 4th respondent-Tahsildar and passed the order. The proceedings do not indicate issuance of notice to the petitioner, though he was arrayed as 1st respondent. In fact, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue as well as learned counsel appeared for the unofficial respondent also endorsed that notice, as seen from the order, was not served on the respondent, the writ petitioner. This Court also does not find service of notice. Hence, this Court is of the considered opinion that without serving notice on the petitioner, the Ex.P1 order came to be passed. Since no notice was issued to the petitioner, the Ex.P1 order suffers from violation of principles of natural justice. On that ground alone, Ex.P1 order is liable to be set aside. 7. Accordingly, the proceedings in D.Dis.C(F)/830/2025, dated 28.03.2026 (Ex.P1) issued by the 3rd respondent, are set aside, and the matter is remitted to the 3rd respondent for fresh consideration. The 3rd respondent shall issue notice to the petitioner as well as the 5th respondent, conduct an enquiry and pass orders afresh strictly as per the Act and the rules made thereunder. Regarding the jurisdiction, the petitioner is at liberty to raise the ground during the enquiry. If such a ground is raised, the 3rd respondent shall address the same and pass appropriate orders keeping in view the ratio laid down in Appikonda Apparao and others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department and others1. 8. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is Allowed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI PVD 1 2024 SCC OnLine AP 3263