APHC010173722025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3558] TUESDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA WRIT APPEAL NOS: 397 AND 404 2025 WRIT APPEAL NO: 397/2025 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent be pleased to allow the Appeal and consequently set aside the Order dated 24.03.2025 in WP No.21407 of 2008 directing the Respondent Authorities to incorporate the name of the Respondent No.1 in the Possession Column of the Revenue Records Between: 1. VIKRAM JETHLAL JOISHER,, S/O JETHALAL HARIDAS JOISHER, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCC- BUSINESS, R/O. NO. 168 AND 170, SANT THUKARAM ROAD, BANUSHALI CHAMBERS, MASJID BUNDAR, MUMBAI-400009. 2. JYOTHI JETHALAL JOISHER,, D/O JETHALAL HARIDAS JOISHER, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCC- HOUSEWIFE, R/O. NO. 168 AND 170, SANT THUKARAM ROAD, BANUSHALI CHAMBERS, MASJID BUNDAR, MUMBAI-400009. 3. DEVAYANI PRAKASH JOISHER,, W/O LATE PRAKASH JOISHER, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCC- HOUSEWIFE, R/O. NO. 168 AND 170, SANT THUKARAM ROAD, BANUSHALI CHAMBERS, MASJID BUNDAR, MUMBAI-400009. 4. RIDDHI PRAKASH JOISHER,, S/O PRAKASH JOISHER, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCC- BUSINESS, R/O. NO. 168 AND 170, SANT THUKARAM ROAD, BANUSHALI CHAMBERS, MASJID BUNDAR, MUMBAI-400009. 5. MIHIR PRAKASH JOISHER,, S/O PRAKASH JOISHER AGED ABOUT 2 27 YEARS, OCC- BUSINESS, R/O. NO. 168 AND 170, SANT THUKARAM ROAD, BANUSHALI CHAMBERS, MASJID BUNDAR, MUMBAI-400009. ...APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS AND 1. PRATAP C JOISHER, S/O.CHANGANLAL VEIJI JOISHER, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, OCC- BUSINESS, UDAYA BHANU APARTMENTS, 3RD, MAHATMA GANDHI RAOD, GHATKOPUR, MUMBAI-400073. 2. VRIKALLU BHASKAR RAO, S/O V.SUBBA RAO, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC - BUSINESS, OLD BUS STAND, NANDIGAMA VILLAGE AND MANDAL KRISHNA DISTRICT 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ANANTAPUR. 4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PENUKONDA, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. 5. THE MANDAL REVENUE OFFICER, SOMANDEPALLI ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. 6. PREMAL PRATAP JOISHER, S/O.LATE PRATAP C.JOISHER,AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS,UDAYA BHANU APARTMENTS,3RD FLOOR, MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD, GHATKOPUR, MUMBAI 400073. 7. DEVAL PRATAP JOISHER, S/O.LATE PRATAP C.JOISHER, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, UDAYA BHANU APARTMENTS,3RD FLOOR, MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD, GHATKOPUR, MUMBAI 400073. RESPONDENT NO.6 AND 7 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER C.O.DT.18.02.2026 VIDE I.A.NO.1 OF 2026 IN W.A.NO.397 OF 2025. ...RESPONDENTS: 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 may be pleased to suspend the Order dated 24.03.2025 in WP No.21407 of 2008 of the learned Single Judge to the extent directing the Respondents to sustain the name of the Respondent No.1/Writ Petitioner as possessors in Colum Nos. 14 and 15 of the Revenue Records and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 May be pleased to permit the Petitioners Implead Respondent Nos.6 & 7 Proposed Respondents herein as Respondents to the above Writ Appeal No.397 of 2025 and pass Counsel for the Appellants: 1. K S MURTHY, SENIOR COUNSEL, REPRESENTING VALLURU CHETAN SUSHEEL Counsel for the Respondents 6 & 7: 1. AVINASH DESAI, SENIOR COUNSEL, REPREESENTING D S SIVADARSHAN 2. GP FOR REVENUE APHC010179982025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3558] TUESDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA WRIT APPEAL NO: 404/2025 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent by the Order dated 24.03.2025 of the learned Single Judge in WP No.21407 of 2008, the Appellant beg to prefer this Writ Appeal on the following grounds, among others Between: 1. SHRI JYOTHIRAADHITYA INFRA,, A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT DOOR NO.1-713/A-2, SRI NAGAR COLONY, RUDRAMPETA, ANANTAPURAMU, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, G.UMA MAHESWAR REDDY, S/O G.LAKSHMIPATHI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCC- 4 BUSINESS, R/O.VILLA NO.64, KOLIA LUXURIA, CHIRAC SCHOOL LANE, BOTANICAL GARDEN ROAD, KONDAPUR, CYBERABAD, HYDERABAD, TELANGANA STATE-500084. ...APPELLANT AND 1. PRATAP C JOISHER, S/O.CHANGANLAL VEIJI JOISHER, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, OCC- BUSINESS, UDAYA BHANU APARTMENTS, 3RD MAHATMA GANDHI RAOD, GHATKOPUR, MUMBAI-400073. 2. VRIKALLU BHASKAR RAO, S/O V.SUBBA RAO, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC- BUSINESS, OLD BUS STAND, NANDIGAMA VILLAGE AND MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ANANTAPUR. 4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PENUKONDA, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. 5. THE MANDAL REVENUE OFFICER, SOMANDEPALLI, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. 6. VIKRAM JETHLAL JOISHER, S/O JETHALAL HARIDAS JOISHER, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCC- BUSINESS, R/O. NO.168 AND 170, SANT THUKARAM ROAD, BANUSHALI CHAMBERS, MASJID BUNDAR, MUMBAI-400009. 7. JYOTHI JETHALAL JOISHER, D/O JETHALAL HARIDAS JOISHER, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, OCC- SPINSTER, R/O. NO. 168 AND 170, SANT THUKARAM ROAD, BANUSHALI CHAMBERS, MASJID BUNDAR, MUMBAI-400009. 8. DEVAYANI PRAKASH JOISHER, W/O LATE PRAKASH JOISHER, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCC- HOUSEWIFE, R/O. NO. 168 AND 170, SANT THUKARAM ROAD, BANUSHALI CHAMBERS, MASJID BUNDAR, MUMBAI-400009. 9. RIDDHI PRAKASH JOISHER, S/O PRAKASH JOISHER, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCC- BUSINESS, R/O. NO. 168 AND 170, SANT THUKARAM ROAD, BANUSHALI CHAMBERS, MASJID BUNDAR, MUMBAI-400009. 10. MIHIR PRAKASH JOISHER, S/O PRAKASH JOISHER, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, OCC- BUSINESS, R/O. NO. 168 AND 170, SANT THUKARAM ROAD, BANUSHALI CHAMBERS, MASJID BUNDAR, 5 MUMBAI-400009. 11. PREMAL PRATAP JOISHER, S/O.LATE PRATAP C.JOISHER,AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS,UDAYA BHANU APARTMENTS,3RD FLOOR, MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD, GHATKOPUR, MUMBAI 400073. 12. DEVAL PRATAP JOISHER, S/O.LATE PRATAP C.JOISHER, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, UDAYA BHANU APARTMENTS,3RD FLOOR, MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD, GHATKOPUR, MUMBAI 400073. RESPONDENT NO.11 AND 12 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER C.O.DT.18.02.2026 VIDE I.A.NO.1 OF 2026 IN W.A.NO.404 OF 2025. ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 may be pleased to dispense with filing of certified copy of the Order dated 24.03.2025 in WP No.21407 of 2008 of the learned Single Judge and pass IA NO: 2 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 may be pleased to grant leave and permit the Petitioner to file the present Writ Appeal against the Order dated 24.03.2025 in WP No.21407 of 2008 of the learned Single Judge and pass IA NO: 3 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 may be pleased to suspend the Order dated 24.03.2025 in WP No.21407 of 2008 of the learned Single Judge and pass IA NO: 4 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 grant leave to Respondent No.4 to file counter affidavit in the above Writ Petition and pass 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 6 May be pleased to permit the Petitioner to add Respondent Nos.11 and 12/ Proposed Respondents herein as Respondents in the above Writ Appeal No.404 of 2025 and pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. M R K CHAKRAVARTHY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. K S MURTHY, SENIOR COUNSEL, REPRESENTING VALLURU CHETAN SUSHEEL 2. AVINASH DESAI, SENIOR COUNSEL, REPRESENTING D S SIVADARSHAN 3. GP FOR REVENUE Date of Reserve : 27-02-2026 Date of pronouncement : 10-3-2026 Date of Upload : 10-3-2026 The Court made the following: 7 Common Judgment: (per Ch. Manavendranath Roy, J.) These two writ appeals are preferred challenging the legal validity of the order dated 24-3-2025 of the learned single Judge passed in W.P.No.21407 of 2008. Therefore, these two appeals are heard together and they are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Respondent Nos.4 to 8 in W.P.No.21407 of 2008 are the appellants in W.A.No.397 of 2025. The appellant in W.A.No.404 of 2025 is the subsequent purchaser of the subject property from respondents 4 to 8 in W.P.No.21407 of 2008 during the pendency of the writ petition. Therefore, they sought leave to challenge the impugned order of the learned single Judge by preferring an appeal against the said order. Leave was granted as per order 27-02-2026 passed in I.A.No.2 of 2025. 3. Parties will be referred as they are arrayed in the writ petition for the sake of convenience. 4. Heard Sri K.S. Murthy, learned Senior Counsel, representing Sri Valluru Chetan Susheel, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Avinash Desai, learned Senior Counsel, representing Sri D.S. Siva Darshan, learned counsel for the respondents 6 and 7/implead parties in W.A.No.397 of 2025, Sri M.R.K. Chakravarthy, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Avinash Desai, learned Senior Counsel, representing Sri D.S. Siva Darshan, learned counsel for the respondents 11 and 12/ implead parties in W.A.No.404 of 2025. 5. Brief overview of the facts leading to the lis germane to dispose of these appeals may be stated as follows: A person, by name Jethalal Haridas Joisher, was the original owner of the subject property, which is in an extent of Ac.1,847.67 cents covered by Survey Nos.80-1, 81, 93, 65, 83, 73-2, 97, 94, 67 and 99 situated at Gudipalli village and covered by Survey No.733-2 of Somandepalli village in Anantapur 8 District. He purchased the said land long back in the year 1949 under a registered sale deed dated 20-9-1949. Thereafter, he along with his son and other family members started a business in 1953 in part of the said land under the name and style “Jethalal and Company”. A firm was constituted by him along with his son and other family members. The said firm was subsequently dissolved and again another firm in the name and style “Bhanusali Sissal Fibre Industry and Plantations” was constituted and they continued the said business. Therefore, the name of owner of the said land Jethalal Haridas Joisher was shown as owner in all the Revenue records and his name was incorporated as owner and possessor of the said land. As they had to stay in Bombay, they have executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of writ petitioner No.1, by name Pratap C. Joisher, to look after the management and other affairs of the said business. Therefore, he has been looking after the affairs of the said business of the firm. While so, the writ petitioners entertained an evil idea of grabbing the said property and made an attempt to sell away the said property claiming themselves as the owners of the property. Therefore, Jethalal Haridas Joisher, who is the original owner of the property and his son filed a suit in O.S.No.7 of 1996 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Penukonda for permanent injunction restraining the petitioners and others from interfering in any manner with the administration and possession of Bhanusali Sissal Fibre Industry and Plantations and properties of the lands appurtenant to it, against the first writ petitioner and others. Writ petitioner No.1 contested the said suit. He denied the title of the plaintiff therein and also possession of the plaintiff. He asserted that he is the family member of the plaintiff and they all constituted a joint family and the subject property was purchased in the name of Jethalal Haridas Joisher under the aforesaid registered sale deed with the joint family funds and as such it is a joint family property and it is not his individual property. He further pleaded in the said suit that during the family settlement, the subject property was settled in favour of petitioner No.1 under a family 9 settlement deed and he became absolute owner of the same and he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. 6. The trial Court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, found that the subject property was purchased by Jethalal Haridas Joisher under the aforesaid registered sale deed and it is his property and he is the owner of the same. The trial Court also found that the writ petitioner as a defendant in the suit failed to substantiate the plea taken by him that it is a joint family property and that it was settled in his name in the family settlement. However, the trial Court found that the management of the business was entrusted to writ petitioner No.1 by the owners of the said property and he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. So, the trial Court dismissed the suit for injunction filed by Jethalal Haridas Joisher and his son as they are not found to be in possession of the property as on the date of filing of the suit. The said suit was dismissed in the year 2002 as The plaintiff in the said suit preferred an appeal against the said judgment and decree in A.S.No.1 of 2003 on the file of learned Additional District Judge, Hindupur. The said appeal came to be dismissed by judgment dated 22-02-2006. The second appeal preferred by the plaintiff in the said suit in S.A.No.822 of 2006 to this Court was also dismissed at the admission stage in view of the concurrent finding recorded relating to possession of the property and as there was no substantial question of law involved in the said second appeal. However, in the said judgment dated 20-11-2006 passed in the second appeal, this Court held that if the appellants feel that the possession of the writ petitioners herein, who are the defendants in the suit, is illegal, the appellants are at liberty to file a suit for recovery of possession of suit property if they are so advised. 7. Be it noted here that till the second appeal was dismissed in the year 2006 and till the year 2007, the name of the original owner Jethalal Haridas Joisher continued to be shown as owner and possessor of the subject property in all the Revenue records. It is only after dismissal of the injunction 10 suit filed by the owner of the property and after dismissal of the first appeal and second appeal, the writ petitioners managed to incorporate their name in the Revenue records in respect of the said property through the then Tahsildar. Obviously taking advantage of the dismissal of the injunction suit, they managed to incorporate their name in the Revenue records. The Tahsildar also without issuing any notice to the original owner of the property and without causing any enquiry has unilaterally incorporated the name of the writ petitioner in the Revenue records in respect of the said property on 01-11-2007. 8. After the second appeal in S.A.No.822 of 2006 was dismissed, the original owners of the subject property filed a comprehensive suit on the file of the learned II Additional District Judge, Hindupur, for declaration of their title and for permanent injunction, and in the event the Court comes to conclusion that the defendants are in possession of the said property, prayed for delivery of the property to the plaintiff. The said suit was decreed as per judgment dated 29-3-2022 in favour of the legal representatives of the original owner Jethalal Haridas Joisher as he passed away earlier. However, in view of the previous decrees dismissing the suit for permanent injunction, the learned II Additional District Judge, Hindupur, ordered for delivery of possession of the subject property to the plaintiffs in the said suit. The learned District Judge found that Jethalal Haridas Joisher is the absolute owner of the property and the possession of the defendants therein is only relating to managing the affairs of the business. Therefore, the Court ordered for delivery of possession to the owners of the property. The defendants therein preferred appeal against the said judgment to this Court and it is pending adjudication before this Court. As decree of declaration is not executable, the defendants therein/appellants prayed only for stay of delivery of possession of the property. The plaintiffs/respondents gave an undertaking in the said appeal that they will not execute the said decree. 11 9. While things stood thus, after the suit for declaration of title was decreed, the original owners of the property filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) to incorporate their name in the Revenue records in view of the decree passed declaring that they are the owners of the property in the above suit. The RDO only ordered notice to the writ petitioners. Without making their appearance before the RDO and putting forward their case, they challenged the said notice of the RDO before the High Court by way of filing W.P.No.21407 of 2008. They challenged the said notice primarily on the ground that the RDO cannot decide possession and title of the land in exercise of his power under Section 5 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 in view of the earlier judgments passed by the Civil Court in the suit filed for permanent injunction and thereby prayed to quash the said proceedings. 10. The learned single Judge found in the impugned order that Jethalal Haridas Joisher is the original owner of the property as he purchased the same under a registered sale deed in the year 1949 and he started business along with his family members in a part of the said land. Therefore, the learned single Judge held that the name of Jethalal Haridas Joisher is rightly shown as owner in the Revenue records in respect of the subject property. But, the learned single Judge held that as the writ petitioners are in possession of the said property as per the findings of the Civil Court in the earlier suit for permanent injunction that their name is to be shown as possessor in the Revenue records. Therefore, in para-29 of the judgment, the learned single Judge while stating that as the dispute inter se the parties is pending adjudication before this Court in A.S.No.101 of 2022, has subject to the result of the said appeal, set aside the order of the 3rd respondent/MRO incorporating the name of the writ petitioner in the Revenue records by partly allowing the appeal before the RDO but sustained the entry in column Nos.14 and 15 showing the name of writ petitioner as possessor of the property. The writ was disposed of exactly with the following directions: 12 “(1) The appeal filed by the 4th respondent before the 2nd respondent Revenue Divisional Officer is partly allowed to the extent of setting aside the order of the 3rd respondent Mandal Revenue Officer directing amendment of entries in the revenue records in deleting the name of Jethalal Haridas Joisher as pattadar/owner of subject property in Column No.12. Insofar as amending or mutating the name of petitioner by substituting the name of Jethalal Haridas Joisher as possessor in Col.Nos.14 and 15 is sustained. (2) The respondents 2 and 3 are directed to amend the entries in record of rights accordingly and further they are directed to mention that such entries shall be subject to the outcome of A.S.No.101 of 2022 pending before this Court.” 11. Aggrieved by the impugned order sustaining the entries made in the Revenue records showing the name of writ petitioner as possessor in column Nos.14 and 15 in the place of Jethalal Haridas Joisher by effecting mutation, the instant writ appeals are preferred by the appellants in both the appeals. 12. Therefore, in essence, the dispute involved in these writ appeals pertain only to the mutation made in the Revenue records showing the name of the writ petitioner as possessor in column Nos.14 and 15 in the place of the original owner of the property Jethalal Haridas Joisher. Therefore, the correctness of the impugned order of the learned single Judge in sustaining the said mutation or amending the entries in column Nos.14 and 15 of the Revenue records by the Tahsildar showing the writ petitioner as possessor is assailed in these writ appeals. 13. At the very outset, it is significant to note that Jethalal Haridas Joisher is the absolute and original owner of the subject property, which is in an extent of Ac.1,847.67 cts of land. He purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 20-9-1949. Even in the judgments of both the suits in O.S.No.7 of 1996 which was confirmed in A.S.No.1 and 2003 and in O.S.No.19 of 2007, the Civil Courts recorded a concurrent finding that Jethalal Haridas Joisher is the absolute owner of the subject property as he purchased the same under the aforesaid registered sale deed. The plea taken by the writ 13 petitioner as a defendant in the said suits that it is a joint family property and the property was purchased in the name of Jethalal Haridas Joisher with the joint family funds and the said property subsequently was settled in his favour in the family settlement was negatived by the Civil Courts. He also failed to substantiate the said plea with any acceptable legal evidence. Therefore, the fact that remains established is that Jethalal Haridas Joisher is the absolute owner of the said property. It is important to note here that right from the inception when Jethalal Haridas Joisher purchased the said property individually in his name with his own funds in the year 1949, his name is shown as owner and possessor of the said property in the Revenue records has all along been for all the length of time from the date of purchase in the year 1949 till the year 2007, for a period of 58 years. It is only after the suit filed by him for permanent injunction was dismissed on the ground that the management of the business was entrusted by the owners to the writ petitioner, the Civil Courts have taken a view that the possession of the property was with him and thereby dismissed the suit for injunction. Taking advantage of the said dismissal of the suit and the appeals, he abruptly managed through the then Tahsildar in the year 2007 to effect mutation of entries in the Revenue records and to incorporate his name in the place of the name of the original owner Jethalal Haridas Joisher in respect of the said land. Surprisingly and curiously and contrary to the prescribed procedure established under law, the Tahsildar even without issuing any notice to the legal heirs of the original owner of the property, who became owners of the said property by succession and inheritance and without conducting any enquiry has unilaterally effected mutation and incorporated the name of the writ petitioner by substituting the name of the original owner of the property. It is done contrary to law. He did not follow the due process of law. He did not even provide an opportunity of hearing to the affected parties. So, the mutation was done in utter violation of the principles of natural justice and without causing any enquiry and without following the procedure prescribed under law. Therefore, the said mutation is not valid under law. 14 He ought to have issued notice to the affected parties and cause an enquiry and then pass appropriate orders according to law. 14. When a request is made to the Tahsildar, who is the Recording Authority under the Act, to make any entries or changes in record of rights, Section 5 of the Act and Rules 5 to 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Book Rules, 1989 contemplates a procedure to be followed by the Recording Authority to make entries or changes in the record of rights. Therefore, he has to invariably follow the said procedure prescribed under Section 5 of the Act. As these entries by way of mutation/amendment were made in the year 2007, Section 5 of the Act as it stood at that time prior to its amendment is relevant in the context to consider. Section 5 of the Act was substituted by way of amendment with effect from 01-01-2022. Prior to its amendment, it reads thus: “5. Amendment and updating of Record of Rights:-- (1) On receipt of intimation of the fact of acquisition of any right referred to in Section 4, the Mandal Revenue Officer shall determine as to whether, and if so in what manner, the record of rights may be amended in consequence therefor and shall carryout the amendment in the record of rights in accordance with such determination: Provided that no order refusing to make an amendment in accordance with the intimation shall be passed unless the person making such intimation has been given an opportunity of making his representation in that behalf. Provided further that when the registration is approved by the Registering Officer, the name of the claimant shall be mutated in lieu of name of the executants on real time basis provisionally in electronically maintained data duly assigning notional sub-division number as may be prescribed pending enquiry by the Tahsildar; Provided also that the provisional mutation shall be confirmed by the Tahsildar electronically by following due procedure under sub-section (3) within thirty days of the registration. The aggrieved person may file an appeal to the Revenue Divisional Officer within a period of fifteen days from the date 15 of order of the Tahsildar and decision of the appellate authority thereon shall subject to the provisions of Section 9 be, final. (2) Where the Mandal Revenue Officer has reason to believe that an acquisition of any right of a description to which Section 4 applies has taken place and of which an intimation has not been made to him under that Section and where he considers that an amendment has to be effected in the record of rights, the Mandal Revenue Officer shall carry out the said amendment in the record of rights. (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. (4) Every order passed under this section shall be communicated the person concerned. (5) Against every order of the Mandal Revenue Officer either making an amendment in the record of rights or refusing to make such an amendment, an appeal shall lie to the Revenue Divisional Officer or such authority as may be prescribed, within a period of sixty days from the date of communication of the said order and the decision of the appellate authority thereon shall subject to the provisions of Section 9, be final. (6) The Mandal Revenue Officer shall have the power to correct clerical errors, if any, in the Pass Books.” 15. Therefore, it is very much clear from Section 5 of the Act that on receipt of intimation of the fact of acquisition of right referred to under Section 4 of the Act, the MRO or the Tahsildar, as the case may be, shall determine as to in what manner the record of rights as amended in consequence thereof 16 and then shall carry out the amendment in record of rights in accordance with such determination. Sub-section (3) of Section 5 of the Act clearly mandates that the Tahsildar before carrying out any amendment in record of rights under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall issue notice in writing to all the persons whose names are entered in the record of rights and who are interested in or affected by the amendment and to any other person who has reason to believe to be interested thereon or affected thereby to show cause within the period specified therein as to why the amendment should not be carried out. In the instant case, the Tahsildar did not issue any such notice to the original owner of the property, by name Jethalal Haridas Joisher or his legal heirs, who are the interested persons and who are affected persons before amending the record of rights by deleting the name of the original owner and incorporating the name of the writ petitioner. Further, the procedure contemplated under Rules 5 to 9 of the 1989 Rules is also not followed and complied with by the Recording Authority. Therefore, when the amendment in the record of rights by way of making mutation or entries in it was done in utter violation of the procedure prescribed under the Act, the same is not valid under law and it cannot be sustained. 16. A Full Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Chinnam Pandurangam v. MRO, Serilingampally1 held that while amending record of rights, the MRO is required to issue prior notice in writing to all persons whose names have been noted in record of rights and who are interested in or affected by the amendment and mere publication of notice is not sufficient. It is also held that proviso to Section 5(1) and (3) represents statutory embodiment of the most important facet of rules of natural justice. 17. The judgment relied on by the learned counsel for respondents rendered in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Sudhir Kumar Singh2, wherein it is held that the violation of principles of natural justice is not a ground if no 1 AIR 2008 AP 15 2 (2021) 19 SCC 706 17 prejudice is otherwise caused, has no application to the present facts of the case. In the instant case, a clear prejudice is caused to the unofficial respondents in the writ petition, who are the affected persons as the amendment by way of entries in the record of rights was made behind their back and without notice to them and without hearing them. 18. The other judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the respondents rendered in the case of Araveeti Venkatramana Reddy v. Yerrabali Venugopal Reddy3 on the proposition that incorporation of entries in Revenue records should be done in a manner to promote transparency, is of no avail to the writ petitioners/respondents herein as it is more in favour of the respondents/appellants herein. 19. There is no dispute regarding the legal position as decided in K.B. Ramachandra Raje v. State of Karnataka4 relied on by the learned counsel for writ petitioners that prayer sought in the writ petition can be moulded by the High Court. 20. After the suit for declaration filed by the legal heirs of the original owner of the property was decreed in their favour and the possession was ordered to be delivered to the owners of the property, they preferred an appeal before the RDO against the orders of the Tahsildar relating to the said mutation effected by him. When the RDO has rightly ordered notice to the writ petitioners to provide an opportunity of hearing to them, without appearing before the RDO and putting forward their case, they challenged the said notice and the proceedings before the learned single Judge. The learned single Judge, after considering the material on record having found that Jethalal Haridas Joisher was the absolute owner of the property under the aforesaid sale deed and that the Civil Court also declared the title of his legal heirs in the suit filed by them in O.S.No.19 of 2007, has rightly set aside the order of the Tahsildar, who is the 3rd respondent in the writ petition. 3 MANU/AP/1268/2024 4 (2016) 3 SCC 422 18 The learned single Judge, after considering the judgments in Dr. Bal Krishna Agarwal v. State of U.P. [(1995) 1 SCC 614] and Durga Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. Principal Secretary, Govt. of U.P. [(2004) 13 SCC 665], was of the view that as the writ petition has been pending for almost 17 years after admission that instead of relegating the parties to pursue their remedy before the RDO/ appellate authority and considering the subsequent events that the matter is to be decided in the writ petition itself and rightly held that the name of the original owner is to be shown in column No.12 of the Revenue records and has set aside the amended entries deleting the name of Jethalal Haridas Joisher as pattadar and owner of the subject property in column No.12 of the Revenue records. But, the learned single Judge erred in sustaining the entry mutating the name of writ petitioner by substituting the name of Jethalal Haridas Joisher as possessor in column Nos.14 and 15 of the Revenue records. 21. When the Civil Courts at all levels and in all the suits and even when the learned single Judge found that Jethalal Haridas Joisher is the absolute owner of the property as he purchased it under the aforesaid registered sale deed and as his legal heirs succeeded to the said property after his death and when the learned single Judge has rightly set aside the amended entry made deleting the name of Jethalal Haridas Joisher as owner and incorporating the name of the writ petitioner as owner of the property, ought to have also set aside the entry relating to the possession in column Nos.14 and 15 of the Revenue records also. Particularly when the writ petitioner right from the inception in all the above suits and in the present writ petition failed to substantiate his plea and stand that property was a joint family property which was purchased in the name of Jethalal Haridas Joisher with the joint family funds and that it was subsequently settled in his name in the family settlement, the learned single Judge ought to have held that his possession is not valid and it has no valid legal basis. It is almost important to note here that the Civil Courts also found that only the management of the business which is in the part of the subject property was entrusted to the writ petitioner by the 19 original owners of the property as they have to stay in Bombay as absentee land owners. They cannot claim the possession of the property in their own individual right when they have no valid title or right to the property. If a General Power of Attorney is executed, the relationship between the owner and the General Power of Attorney Holder is that of principal and agent. So, the possession of the agent will be the possession on behalf of the principal. He cannot claim any individual possession in his own right. Further, the principle of law is that possession always follows title in respect of the other vacant land. Therefore, when it is found that the writ petitioner has no individual valid legal right over the property in question, simply because he has been in possession with the management affairs of the business, he cannot be allowed to take undue advantage of the same and claim individual possession of the said property. It is pertinent to note here the mischief played by the writ petitioner. Till the year 2007 when the injunction suit and the appeal was dismissed, he did not make any attempt to effect mutation in the Revenue records. It is only after the said suit and appeals are dismissed, taking undue advantage of the same, he played a mischief by managing to make an entry in the Revenue records through the Tahsildar behind the back of the original owners of the property. The learned single Judge failed to notice the said fraud played by him. So, the learned single Judge ought not to have sustained the mutation of the name made in column Nos.14 and 15 in the name of the writ petitioner by deleting the name of the original owner Jethalal Haridas Joisher. A grave injustice has been done to the original owners of the property on account of the said verdict in sustaining the mutation made in column Nos.14 and 15 of the Revenue records. Therefore, the impugned order of the learned single Judge in relation to sustaining the said entry is liable to be set aside. 22. As it is found that the Tahsildar made the said entry relating possession in column Nos.14 and 15 of the Revenue record in utter violation of the prescribed procedure as discussed above and in violation of principles 20 of natural justice, the said entry also cannot be sustained. It is also liable to be set aside. 23. Therefore, the order of the learned single Judge in setting aside the order of the 2nd respondent/RDO in the writ petition by allowing the appeal of the 4th respondent filed before the 2nd respondent/RDO is perfectly sustainable under law. But, the order of the learned single Judge in sustaining the mutation made in column Nos.14 and 15 of the Revenue records by incorporating the name of the writ petitioner in the place of the original owner Jethalal Haridas Joisher is not sustainable under law and it is liable to be set aside. 24. Resultantly, the writ appeals are allowed setting aside the order of the learned single Judge in sustaining the mutation/entries made in column Nos.14 and 15 of the Revenue records deleting the name of Jethalal Haridas Joisher the original owner and incorporating the name of the writ petitioner as possessor in column Nos.14 and 15. Consequently, respondents 2 and 3 in the writ petition are directed to amend the entries in record of rights showing the name of the original owner i.e. Jethalal Haridas Joisher/his legal heirs as owner and possessor in column Nos.12, 14 and 15 of the Revenue records and in all the relevant columns. The said entries shall be subject to the result of A.S.No.101 of 2022 pending on the file of this Court. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________________ CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, J. ________________________ TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA, J. 10th March, 2026. Ak 21 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA Writ Appeal Nos.397 and 404 of 2025 (per CMR, J.) 10th March, 2026. (Ak)