APHC010712242025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3208] TUESDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 155/2026 Between: 1. K. SYAMALA, W/O K. GOVINDA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, R/O D.NO.4-189, GUNDLAKATTAMANCHI, GUNDLAKATTAMANCHI VILLAGE, BANGARUPALEM MANDAL, CHITTOR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.-522241 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, CHITTOOR.- 517001 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PALAMANERU DIVISION, PALEMANERU, CHITTOOR DISTRICT,-517408 4. THE TAHSILDAR, BANGARUPALEM MANDAL, BANGARUPALEM CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 517416 5. C LAKSHMIPATHI REDDY, S/O CHINNASWAMY REDDY VAARI TYAGARAJULU REDDY, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 1-39, TAMBUGANIPALLE, TAMBUGANIPALLE VILLAGE BANGARUPALEM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.-517416 ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 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 Writ, order, or directions, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the Respondent No.4 in trying to incorporate the name of the 5th respondent by deleting the name of the Petitioner in the Record of Rights pertaining to the land to an extent of Ac. O.llCents in Sy. No.234/9, Ac.0.22 Cents in Sy.No. 234/8, Ac.0.29 Cents in Sy.No. 234/5, Ac.0.24 Cents in Sy.No. 232/3 and Ac. 2.69 Cents in Sy.No.151/7 of Tambuganipalle Village, Bangarupalem Mandal, Chittoor District, without issuing notice to the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary, violation of provisions of A.P. Rights in Land Pattadar Pass Book Act, 1971 and Violation of Article-14, 21 and 300-A of The Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to incorporate the name of the respondent no-5 in the record of rights pertaining to the lands to an extent of Ac.O.llCents in Sy. No.234/9, Ac.0.22Cents in Sy.No. 234/8, Ac.0.29 Cents in Sy.No. 234/5, Ac.0.24 Cents in Sy.No. 232/3 and Ac. 2.69 Cents in Sy.No.151/7 of Tambuganipalle Village, Bangarupalem Mandal, Chittoor District 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 pleased to direct the respondents 4- not to incorporate any other names in the Record of Rights about the land to an extent of Ac.0.11 Cents in Sy. No.234/9, Ac.0.22 Cents in Sy.No. 234/8, Ac.0.29 Cents in Sy.No. 234/5, Ac.0.24 Cents in Sy.No. 232/3 and Ac. 2.69 Cents in Sy.No.151/7 of Tambuganipalle Village, Bangarupalem Mandal, Chittoor District, without following due process of law contemplated under the provisions of the A.P. Rights in Land Pattadar Pass Book Act, 1971, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. HARINATH REDDY SOMA 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 seeking the following relief: “…to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of respondent No.4 in attempting to incorporate the name of respondent No.5 by deleting the name of the petitioner in the Record of Rights pertaining to the lands admeasuring Ac.0.11 cents in Sy.No.234/9, Ac.0.22 cents in Sy.No.234/8, Ac.0.29 cents in Sy.No.234/5, Ac.0.24 cents in Sy.No.232/3, and Ac.2.69 cents in Sy.No.151/7, situated at Tambuganipalle Village, Bangarupalem Mandal, Chittoor District, without issuing notice to the petitioner, as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Book Act, 1971, and Articles 14, 21, and 300-A of the Constitution of India, and consequently to direct the respondents not to incorporate the name of respondent No.5 in the Record of Rights in respect of the aforesaid lands and to pass appropriate orders.” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondent authorities, without issuing any notice to the petitioner and without affording her an opportunity of hearing, are attempting to mutate the name of the 5th respondent in the revenue records in respect of the subject property belonging to the petitioner. Such action is arbitrary, illegal, and violative of the principles 4 of natural justice, and is in direct contravention of the law laid down by the Full Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Chinnam Pandurangam v. Mandal Revenue Officer, Serilingampally Mandal and Others, reported in 2007 (6) ALD 348. 4. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, on written instructions, would submit that pursuant to the grievance petition submitted by respondent No.5 before the District Collector, Chittoor, the same was forwarded to respondent No.4 for taking action in accordance with law. In the course of the enquiry, respondent No.4 and the Revenue Divisional Officer, Palamaner, issued enquiry notices under the PGRS to the petitioner vide Roc.CTR202511032759/2025 dated 07.11.2025 and Roc.No.CTR2025 8254564/2025 dated 24.08.2025, directing her to attend the enquiry on 10.11.2025 at 11.00 a.m. along with relevant documents. 5. It is submitted that the petitioner has filed the present writ petition apprehending that the respondent authorities intend to mutate the subject lands in the name of respondent No.5. However, the notices were issued only in connection with the grievance petition filed by respondent No.5 and not suo motu. The respondent authorities will conduct the enquiry and take action strictly in accordance with law, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, if the matter falls within their jurisdiction. 5 6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, this Court is not inclined to go into the merits of the case; hence, notice to the 5th respondent is dispensed with. 7. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction that, if at all the 5th respondent files any application for mutation of his name, the respondent authorities shall issue notice to the petitioner in Form-VIII before taking any action in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE D. RAMESH 6th January, 2026 cbn 6 397 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D. RAMESH Writ Petition No.155 of 2026 6th January, 2026 cbn