APHC010596122023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] FRIDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.30805 of 2023 Between: 1. MANDA THIRUPATHI REDDY, VENKATA SUBBAIAH @ SUBBAIAH, AGED 65 YEARS, R/O NAGIREDDYPALLI VILLAGE, KONAKANAMITLA MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPLE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIATE BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ONGOLE. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KANIGIRI REVENUE DIVISION, KANIGIRI, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, KONAKANAMITLA MANDAL, KONAKANAMITLA, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 5. THE MANDAL SURVEYOR, KONAKANAMITLA MANDAL, KONAKANAMITLA, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 6. THE VILLAGE REVENUE OFFICER, GARLADINNE VILLAGE, KONAKANAMITLA MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 7. THE VILLAGE SURVEYOR, GARLADINNE VILLAGE, KONAKANAMITLA MANDAL, PRAKASAM 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 pass an order or orders more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamous declaring the action of the respondents in carrying out amendments in online Revenue Records i.e., deleting the name of the petitioner with respect to the land admeasuring Ac.3-30 2 cents in Sy.No.134/3 of Garladinne village, Konakanamitla Village, Prakasam District as illegal, arbitrary, against the provisions of Sec.5(3) of A.P Rights in Land in Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971, principles of natural justice and also against the Articles 14 and 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to insert the name of the petitioner in online records by deleting the word .others. against the land particulars in Sy.No.134/3 of Garladinne village, Konakanamitla Village, Prakasam District. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. PAVAN KUMAR PASUPULETI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: 3 ORDER: The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief: "……to pass an order or orders more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamous declaring the action of the respondents in carrying out amendments in online Revenue Records i.e., deleting the name of the petitioner with respect to the land admeasuring Ac.3-30 cents in Sy.No.134/3 of Garladinne village, Konakanamitla Village, Prakasam District as illegal, arbitrary, against the provisions of Sec.5(3) of A.P Rights in Land in Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971, principles of natural justice and also against the Articles 14 and 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to insert the name of the petitioner in online records by deleting the word .others. against the land particulars in Sy.No.134/3 of Garladinne village, Konakanamitla Village, Prakasam Districty and pass such other orders……" 2. The present Writ Petition is filed aggrieved by the action of the 4th respondent-Tahsildar, who deleted the name of the writ petitioner in the revenue records in Acs.3.30 cents in Sy.No.134/3 of Garladinne Village of Konakanamitla Mandal, Prakasam District. The present Writ Petition is filed aggrieved by the action of the 4th respondent-Tahsildar in deleting the names from the revenue records on the grounds that the said action of the 4th respondent in deleting the name of the writ petitioner without notice is contrary to the judgment of the Full Bench of 4 the common High Court in Chinnam Pandurangam Vs. Mandal Revenue Officer, Serilingampally Mandal reported in 2007(6) ALD 248 (FB) and also contrary to Rule 19 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Rules, 1989 and also contrary to Section 5(3) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971, and prayed to direct the respondents to restore the name of the petitioner in the revenue records. 3. The 4th respondent filed counter and stated that the petitioner and other person by name Sampathi Narasaiah are claiming same subject land and in view of the above legal complication, the status of ownership was recorded as “others” and to insert the name of the writ petitioner in the online record, the petitioner has to file an appeal for redressal of his grievance before the competent authority under the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 and the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Rules, 1989, and admitted that the petitioner’s name was deleted from the web land record on the ground that the petitioner is not in the possession of the subject land. 4. The counter affidavit filed by the 4th respondent clearly indicates that no notice was issued to the petitioner while deleting the name of the petitioner and the petitioner’s predecessor’s name in the revenue records. 5. As per the judgment in Chinnam Pandurangam Vs. Mandal Revenue Officer, Serilingampally Mandal reported in 2007(6) ALD 248 (FB), the Full Bench held at paragraph No.10 that when an application is made for the amendment of the existing entries in the 5 Record of Rights, the person whose name already existing in such record is entitled to contest the proposed amendment. He can do so only if a notice regarding the proposed amendment is given to him by the recording authority. At paragraph No.11, it is held that the requirement of issuing 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 is independent of the requirement of publication of notice in accordance with the second part of Section 5(3) read with Rules 19 and 5(2) of the Rules. The language of Form-VII in which the notice is required to be published cannot control the interpretation of the substantive provision contained in Section 5(3) of the Ac, which, as mentioned above, casts a duty on the recording authority to issue notice in writing to all persons whose names are entered in the Record of Rights and who are interested in or affected by the proposed amendment. 6. Admittedly, no notice was issued before making the amendment in the revenue records as well as in webland. In view of the judgment of the Full Bench and basing upon the counter affidavit filed by the Tahsildar, the Writ Petition is liable to be allowed. 7. Accordingly, the present Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the Tahsildar to restore the name of the writ petitioner forthwith in the webland as well as in the revenue records, failing which, it will be viewed seriously. On restoring the name of the writ petitioner, the Tahsildar is hereby directed to issue notice to the petitioner and affected parties and conduct an enquiry as contemplated under the Act and pass 6 appropriate order in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 30.01.2026 siva 7 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.30805 of 2023 Date: 30.01.2026 siva