1 APHC010325572022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3458] TUESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 19535/2022 Between: 1. G.SREENIVASULU, S/O. LATE SEETHARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCC. CULTIVATION, R/O. D.NO. 2-174/3/1. BEEDI COLONY. NANASAHEB PET. PUNGUNUR MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. A.P. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, , REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT. VELAGAPUDI. GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CHITTOOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 3. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR, CHITTOOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, PUNGUNUR MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT 5. THE SUBREGISTRAR, PUNUGNUR MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 6. P VENKATA RAYULU, S/O. NOT KNOWN, TAHSILDAR, MANDAL REVENUE OFFICE, PUNGUNUR MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT 7. G V RAMANA, S/O. NOT KNOWN, VILLAGE REVENUE OFFICER, MANDAL REVENUE OFFICE, PUNGUNUR MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT 8. C VENKATASUBBAIAH, S/O. NOT KNOWN. SUB-REGISTRAR, SUB- RIGISTRAR OFFICE, PUNGUNUR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 2 9. V VIJAYAMMA, W/O. V. RAMACHANDRA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 26-113. KONETI PALEYAM, PUNGUNUR MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...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 to issue a Writ. Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the highhanded action of the Respondents No. 2 to 3 in not taking action against the Respondents No. 6 to 8 by consider the Petitioner representation dated 02.05.2022, who are colluded with the 9th Respondent and register sale deeds and GPA by the 5th respondent without parent documents and 6 to 8th Respondents who are forged the documents without knowledge to the Petitioner and modified the Revenue records by the 9th Respondent name in respect of the Petitioner land an extent of Ac. -0,5.0 cents in Sy.No. 82-1 at Pungunur Revenue Village and Mandal, Chittoor District, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, violation of Articles 14, 19. 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and contrary to the principles of Natural Justice and violation of the provisions of the A.P. State Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbook Act, 1947 and Rules framed thereunder and consequently direct the Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 to cancel the entire registered documents by the 9th Respondent and remove Respondent No 9 name in revenue records in respect of the Petitioner property an extent 0.13 of Ac. 0.13 cents in Sy. No. 82-1 situated at Pungunur Revenue Village and Mandal. Chittoor District, 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 to direct the Respondents to verify all the Revenue Records and to take departmental action against the Respondent Nos. 6 to 8 pending disposal of the above writ petition, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. BASHA SHAIK Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 3 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 19535/2022 The Court made the following order: Heard Sri Basha Shaik, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents. Despite service of notice, no appearance has been entered on behalf of the unofficial respondent No.9. 2. It is contended that the petitioner along with his brother-in-law, jointly purchased an extent of Ac.1.00 cents in Sy.No.82-1 of Punganur Revenue Village and Mandal, Chittoor District, from their vendor, who is the father of the 9th respondent herein, for a sale consideration of Rs.1,50,000/- vide registered Sale Deed bearing Document No.519/2006. After the said purchase, both of them partitioned the property equally. Accordingly, an extent of Ac.0.50 cents fell to the share of the petitioner. Pursuant to the said partition, the petitioner’s name was duly entered in the revenue records and mutation was effected. Subsequently, the vendor’s daughter, i.e., the 9th respondent herein, filed a suit in O.S.No.77 of 2019 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Punganur, seeking partition of the property admeasuring Ac.1.00 cents purchased by the petitioner along with his brother- in-law. The petitioner and the unofficial respondent No.9 entered into a compromise before the Lok Adalat, and a compromise award dated 13.07.2019 was passed, under which the 9th respondent relinquished her rights in favour of the petitioner. 4 3. It is further contended that after purchasing the said extent of Ac.1.00 cents, the petitioner and his brother-in-law jointly sold an extent of Ac.0.87 cents through different registered sale deeds. In respect of the remaining extent of Ac.0.13 cents, the 9th respondent once again approached the revenue authorities seeking mutation of her name in the revenue records, despite the compromise before the Lok Adalat. It is submitted that the revenue authorities, without issuing notice to the petitioner, mutated the name of the unofficial respondent No.9 in the revenue records. Being aggrieved by the said proceedings, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition alleging violation of the principles of natural justice and the provisions of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971. 4. Today, when the matter is taken up for consideration, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue has placed before the Court a copy of the written instructions received by him from the 4th respondent, dated 12.02.2026. A perusal of the same would reflect that the petitioner and the co- owner of the property have jointly sold away the entire extent of Ac.1.00 cents without obtaining permission for conversion of the agricultural land into non- agricultural land. 5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that they have sold only an extent of Ac.0.87 cents and that a remaining extent of Ac.0.13 cents is still in their possession and occupation. In the said connection, the learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed before the Court a map showing the extents of plots that has been sold in favour of the 5 third parties. According to the petitioner, the total extent of land including the road is 4277 Sq. yards and contends that there is left over land in an extent of 562 Sq. yards. 6. Considered the submissions. In light of the submissions made by the revenue that the petitioner had sold away the entire extent, it appeared very relevant to examine the Exhibit No.P6 - Encumbrance Certificate(EC), filed along with the writ petition by the petitioner. A perusal of the entries in the said EC would substantiate the argument made by the revenue department that the petitioner has sold away the entire extent of one acre on a square yard basis, after leaving a certain extent for the road. In that regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner, while not disputing the fact of alienations, has placed before the court a statement of calculation to contend that there is still an extent of 562 square yards. S.NO. (As per EC) NAMES SY.NOS. EXTENT (Sq.yds) EXTENT (Cents) 16. Radha Krishna 82/1, 82/1B 146.66 3.00 17. Shaik Sayyad Basha 82/1, 82/1B 200 4.14 18. Bhukya Bhima Nayak 82/1, 82/1B 266.66 5.50 19. A. Suseela 82/1, 82/1B 252.77 5.25 20. A. Suseela 82/1, 82/1B 233.33 4.83 23. Koneti Venkataramana 82/1, 82/1B 241.11 5.00 6 24. K. Sudhakar Reddy 82/1, 82/1B 350 7.25 25. Gubala Reddeppa 82/1, 82/1B 252.77 5.25 26. Mani 82/1, 82/1B 241.11 5.00 27. P. Rajamma 82/1, 82/1B 252.77 5.25 28. C. Ramamma 82/1, 82/1B 496 10.25 29. K. S. Arshiya 82/1, 82/1B 240 4.95 30. K. Komala 82/1, 82/1B 233.33 4.83 Total 3406.51 70.5 Particulars EXTENT (Sq. yards) EXTENT (Cents) Total Land Extent in respect of 13 registered sale deeds 3406.51 70.5 Road Area 871.12 18.00 Total 4277.63 88.5 Particulars EXTENT (Sq. yards) EXTENT (Cents) Total extent of the land 4840 100 Total extent of land including registered sale deeds and road -4277.63 -88.5 Total remaining land 562.37 11.5 Total 4840 100 7. Thus claims that there still exists an extent of 562.37 Sq. yds (0.11.5 cents). 7 8. The said contention of the petitioner in my view is misplaced, having regard to the fact that certain extents sold by the petitioner have missed in the above referred calculation prepared on behalf of the petitioner. In the said regard it is deemed appropriate to set out the details of the extents sold by the petitioner and his brother in law as reflected in the EC, Ex.P6. S.No. Survey No. Extents 11 82/1, 82/1B 146.66 Sq. Yds 16 82/1, 82/1B 146.66 Sq. Yds 17 82/1, 82/1B 200 Sq. Yds 18 82/1, 82/1B 266.66 Sq. Yds 19 82/1, 82/1B 252.77 Sq. Yds 20 82/1, 82/1B 233.33 Sq. Yds 21 82/1, 82/1B 252.77 Sq. Yds 22 82/1, 82/1B 273.33 Sq. Yds 23 82/1, 82/1B 241.11 Sq. Yds 24 82/1, 82/1B 350 Sq. Yds 25 82/1, 82/1B 252.77 Sq. Yds 26 82/1, 82/1B 241.11 Sq. Yds 27 82/1, 82/1B 252.77 Sq. Yds 28 82/1, 82/1B 496 Sq. Yds 29 82/1, 82/1B 240 Sq. Yds 30 82/1, 82/1B 233.33 Sq. Yds 8 Total 3927 Road 871.72 Sq. Yds Total 4,079.27 9. In the light of the above and from the material on record, admittedly the property has been sold on Square yards, and as per the respondents without taking permission from the concerned revenue authorities the subject land has been put to non agricultural use, the contentions made on behalf of the petitioner cannot be countenanced, for the reason that after selling the entire extent of land on square yard basis, as evident from the EC after earmarking certain portion across the land for Roads etc., there virtually remains no land for him out of the subject one acre, to seek mutation in his name. More importantly, the petitioner’s brother-in-law, with whom the petitioner claims to have jointly purchased the land, did not join the petitioner in filing the present writ petition. 10. Having regard to the same, I do not find any merit in the writ petition to grant the relief sought by the petitioner. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed. ______________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA Dated: 03.03.2026 MSI 9 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 19535/2022 Dated: 03.03.2026 MSI