APHC010005002022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3458] TUESDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 697/2022 Between: 1. P. CHANDRA SEKHAR REDDY,, S/O. P. NARASIMHA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCC. LECTURER(RTD), R/O. D.NO.76/2, RAMARAJUPALLE VILLAGE AND POST, KADAPA MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT AT VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KADAPA REVENUE DIVISION, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT 4. THE TAHSILDAR, MANDAL REVENUE OFFICE, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT AT KADAPA 5. M H KARIMULLA, S/O. MOHAMMED HUSSAIN, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, RIO. D.NO.6/247-A, KHAJI MUSTHAFA HUSSAIN STREET, KADAPA CITY, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT 6. M H SATTAR, S/O. MOHAMMED HUSSAIN, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.6/247-A, KHAJI MUSTHAFA HUSSAIN STREET, KADAPA CITY, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT 7. P LALITHAMMA DIED AS PER L RS R9 TO R11, W/O. LATE YELLA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, RAMARAJUPALLE VILLAGE, KADAPA MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT 8. G SREENIVASULU, S/ O UNKNOWN, AGED ABOUT YEARS, THE 2 THEN TAHSILDAR, PRESENTLY WORKING AS RDO, JAMMALAMADUGU, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT 9. SMT CHINTHALA SHANKUNTHALAMMA W/O VENKATA NARAYANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/O D.NO.7/25, BAYYAREDDIGARIPALLI VILLAGE, HAMLET OF SUDDAMALLA VILLAGE, RAMAPURAM MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. 10. PALAGIRI RAMA MOHAN REDDY S/O LATE YELLA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/O D.NO.76/113,RAMARAJUPALLI VILLAGE AND POST, KADAPA CITY. 11. PALAGIRI VENKATA SUBBA REDDY S/O LATE YELLA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O D.NO.76/112, RAMARAJUPALLI VILLAGE AND POST, KADAPA CITY. RR 9 TO 11 ARE BROUGHT ON RECORD AS L.RS OF THE DECEASED RESPONDENT NO.7 AS PER THE COURT'S ORDER DT.11.03.2025 IN I.A.NO. 02 OF 2022. ...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 topleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction mostly one which is in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 4th Respondent in rejecting the application dated 26-09-2018 by Orders vide Ref.No. TAHKDP-TLOROR(AD)/7/2018-SA-TAH(KDP)-KDPDVSN dated 26- 12-2018 in contrary to A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbook Act, 1971 and the Rules, 1989 thereof as arbitrary, illegal, irregular, violative of Articles 14 and 300-A of Indian Constitution, unjustified and unsustainable and set aside the same and consequently direct the Respondents to amend the Record of Rights with respect of land admeasuring Ac.0.20 cents in Sy.No.77/1 and Ac.0.22 cents in Sy.No.76/1 of Ramarajupalle Village, Kadapa Mandal, YSR Kadapa District in view of the Judgement and Decree, dt.19.8.2003 in O.S.No.86/97 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Kadapa and issue Title Deed and Pattadar Passbook to the Petitioner and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2022 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 pleased to direct the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 to block the online display of revenue records from creation of third party interest and alienation with respect of land admeasuring Ac.0.20 cents in Sy.No.77/1 and Ac.0.22 cents in Sy.No.76/1 of Ramarajupalle Village, Kadapa Mandal, YSR Kadapa District and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2022 3 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 pleased to permit the Petitioner to bring the Proposed Respondent Nos.9 to 11 on record as the legal heirs of the deceased Respondent No.7 in W.P.No.697/2022 and pass such other IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 pleased to vacate the interim order dated 07.01.2022 in WP.No.697 of 2022 and to dismiss the Writ Petition IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 pleased to permit the Petitioner to take out notice through Substitute Service to the Proposed Respondent No.9 in I.A.No.2/2022 in W.P.No.697/2022 by way of publication in a Local Telugu Newspaper in YSR Kadapa District and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SODUM ANVESHA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. G RAMACHANDRA REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER: Heard Ms. Sodum Anvesha, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Sri G.Ramachandra Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.5 and 6. 2. It is contended that the Smt. Pyarijan and her sons i.e., respondent Nos.5 and 6 along with respondent No.7 and her sons were 4 interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the subject property of the petitioner. The petitioner filed O.S.No.86 of 1997 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Kadapa, seeking declaration of title and consequential perpetual injunction. The suit filed by the petitioner in O.S.No.86 of 1997 was decreed. And the said judgment and decree had become final. It is contended that the unofficial respondent Nos.5 and 6 filed O.S.No.1301 of 2006 on the file of III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa seeking declaration of title over the land of an extent of Ac.0.20 cents in Sy.No.77/1 of Ramarajupalle Village. The suit filed by the respondents was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 17.04.2008. Against the said judgement and decree, the petitioner herein filed an appeal in A.S.No.51 of 2008. The appeal filed by the petitioner was allowed vide judgement and decree date 06.06.2009. The said judgment and decree became final. The unofficial respondent Nos. 5 and 6, the legal heirs of Smt. Pyarijan filed I.A.Nos.1754 of 2010 and 1755 of 2010 seeking condonation of delay in filing the application to set aside the ex-parte judgment and decree. The said I.A. was dismissed for default. The respondent Nos.5 and 6 filed an application in I.A.No.3578 of 2012 seeking restoration of I.A.No.1754 of 2010, the same was dismissed for default on 07.08.2017. Seeking restoration of the same, another application was filed in I.A.No.945 of 2017 and the same was dismissed on 11.09.2017. It is contended that the petitioner is entitled to get his name mutated in the revenue records and obtain pattadar passbooks. Accordingly, the petitioner had applied for it to the 4th respondent. The 4th respondent vide proceedings 5 dated 31.05.2018, dismissed the said application. Thereafter, the petitioner filed another application through Mee Seva on 18.06.2018. The said application was also rejected on 06.07.2018. Challenging the said proceedings of the Tahsildar, the petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P.No.32703 of 2018 before this Court. The said writ petition was disposed of on 12.09.2018, granting liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh application. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted a fresh representation on 26.09.2018. The impugned proceedings in the writ petition have been passed after a long-drawn litigation including writ petitions and subsequent contempt cases filed for non-compliance with the orders passed in the writ petitions. The impugned proceedings were passed by the Tahsildar, observing that the petitioner did not file sufficient evidence in support of his claim and thus rejected the application. Challenging the same, the instant writ petition is filed. 3. The Tahsildar filed a counter-affidavit stating, inter alia, that the petitioner did not avail of the remedy of appeal provided under the statute. 4. Notices on unofficial respondent Nos.5 and 6 were served; however, no appearance has been entered on their behalf. Since respondent No.7 had died, respondent Nos.9 to 11 have been brought on record as the legal representatives of respondent No.7. The notices sent to respondent Nos. 10 and 11 have been returned with an endorsement as “refused to receive”. The notice on respondent No.11 was served by publication in a newspaper. Respondent No. 8 was the Tahsildar at the 6 relevant time, and the notice sent to him was returned unserved with an endorsement that the address could not be located. 5. Notices on all the respondents are served/deemed to have been served except respondent No.8, the Tahsildar at the relevant time, whom the petitioner had impleaded in his personal capacity. No relief as such against respondent No.8 is sought, except for making allegations against him for his alleged bias. Therefore, I consider it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition, on the basis of the pleadings of the respective parties on record and the submissions made on their behalf by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue. 6. Considered the submissions. The finding of the Tahsildar, about the judgment and decree in O.S.No.86 of 1997 dated 19.08.2003, that the learned trial Judge had granted only an injunction against the defendants restraining them from interfering with the plaintiff’s property and the enjoyment of the same, is perverse. Having regard to the fact that the learned trial Judge had in fact decreed the suit filed for declaration of title of suit schedule property and granted permanent injunction. In the light of the same, Tahsildar should not have rejected the case of the petitioner for granting mutation citing that the petitioner did not submit sufficient evidence to substantiate his case. The finding of the Tahsildar, is perverse. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed setting aside the impugned proceedings of the 4th respondent – Tahsildar dated 26.12.2018, directing the Tahsildar to pass appropriate orders after taking into 7 consideration the decree passed in O.S.No.86 of 1997 and after giving opportunity of hearing to both the petitioner and the unofficial respondents. Tahsildar is directed to pass appropriate orders to mutate the name of the petitioner in the revenue records after issuing notice to the unofficial respondents herein and the entire exercise shall be completed within three (3) months from the date of the receipt of the order. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. ______________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA Date:10.02.2026 ANI 8 141 THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION No.697 of 2022 Date:10.02.2026 ANI