1 APHC010532222025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3208] MONDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 27989/2025 Between: 1. NALLAMAKALA RAVI, S/O. LATE PEDDA KATURAIAH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, R/O. MANAVALI VILLAGE, OJILI MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TIRUPATI DISTRICT AT TIRUPATI. 3. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, SULLURUPET, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. 4. TAHSILDAR, , OJILI MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. 5. VENDOTI SIRISHA, W/O. NARAYANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCCL HOUSE WIFE, R/O. KARRABALLAVOLU VILLAGE AND POST, OJILI 2 MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. MUCHAKAYALA NARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH WRIT PETITION No.27989 of 2025 ORDER: The present writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: “….to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of respondents, particularly the respondents 3 and 4 in wrongly mutated the name of 5th respondent in Computerized Adangal and IB Report in online web land revenue records that are being maintained by the 4th respondent in respect of my agricultural landed property admeasuring with an extent of Ac, 2,70 cents and Covered by Survey No. 133/2 and same was situated at Manavali Village in ojili Mandal of Tirupati District and without issuing any notice, without following any known procedureestablished by law and declare the same as illegal, arbitrary, un Just and unconstitutional and amounts to non-discharge of legal obligation conferred on 3rd and 4th respondents under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 and rules framed there under and offends articles 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India….” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4. 4 3. As directed by this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner has served notice on the 5th respondent and filed proof of service. Despite notice being served on the 5th respondent, none entered appearance on her behalf. 4. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court has passed the following order on 01.12.2025. “The writ petition is filed to declare the action of the respondents, more particularly, respondent Nos.3 and 4 in wrongly mutated the name of respondent No.5 in computerized adangal and 1B report in Online in online web land revenue records in respect of the agricultural land property admeasuring an extent of 2.70 cents and covered by Survey No.133/2 at Manavali Village, Ojili Mandal, Tirupati District, without issuing any notice, without following the procedure. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the said action of the respondents is contrary to the observation made by the Full Bench of this Hon’ble Court in Chinnam Pandurangam vs. Mandal Revenue Officer, Serilingampally & ors. reported in (2007) 6 ALT 134. The learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4, on instructions, submitted that based on the registered document dated 13.08.2007, the authorities have mutated the name of the 5 respondent No.5 but with regard to the notice in Form-VIII, the instructions are silent and further stated in the instructions that they would follow the procedure. Considered the submissions made by both the learned counsel. As no notice is served on the respondent No.5, the learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to take out personal notice to respondent No.5 through RPAD and file proof of the same in the Registry, by the date of next adjournment. List the matter after two (02) weeks.” 5. In view of non-issuance of Form-VIII notice to the petitioner while mutating the name of the 5th respondent in revenue records, the same is contrary to the observations made by the Full Bench of this Court in Chinnam Pandurangam v. Mandal Revenue Officer, Serilingampally Mandal1. 6. Hence, the impugned action of respondent Nos.3 and 4 in mutating the name of the 5th respondent in revenue records is set aside remanding the matter to the 4th respondent to reconsider the application made by the 5th respondent after issuing Form-VIII notice to the petitioner and after providing an opportunity of 1 2007 SCC OnLine AP 459 6 hearing to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH Date: 05.01.2026 Ivd 7 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH WRIT PETITION No.27989 of 2025 Dated: 05.01.2026 Ivd