APHC010301412026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Monday, the twenty second day of June Two thousand and twenty six The Honourable Writ Petition Between: Chinna Narasimhulu @ and The State of Andhra Pradesh and Counsel for the petitioner: 1. Rayalcheruvu Abishek Reddy Counsel for the respondent 1. G.P. for Revenue The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) the twenty second day of June Two thousand and twenty six Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi Writ Petition No.15821 of 2026 @ Harijana Narasimhudu f Andhra Pradesh and others ...Respondents etitioner: Rayalcheruvu Abishek Reddy espondents: for Revenue The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3311] the twenty second day of June Two thousand and twenty six Bhanumathi ...Petitioner Respondents 2 BSB, J W.P.No.15821 of 2026 ORDER: This 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 Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondent No. 3 in passing the impugned order Rc. D5/1342/2025, dated 16.05.2026, which was served upon the petitioner only on 12.06.2026, and the consequential action of the respondents Nos. 5 and 6 in initiating steps to mutate the name of the respondent No. 7 in the online Webland / Adangal records pursuant to proceedings Rc. B. 215/2025, dated 10.06.2026 in respect of Ac.1.32 cents in Sy. No. 414/B and Ac.1.68 cents in Sy. No. 414/C situated at T.Somalaguduru village, Nandavaram Mandal, Kurnool District, as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, contrary to law and violative of the principles of natural justice, and consequently set aside the proceedings vide Rc. D5/1342/2025, dated 16.05.2026 and direct the respondents Nos. 5 and 6 not to effect mutation of the name of the respondent No.7 in the online Webland / Adangal records in respect of the aforesaid lands pending disposal of O.S. No. 251 of 2025 and the Review Petition pending before the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration (C.C.L.A.), Andhra Pradesh, and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.” 3 BSB, J W.P.No.15821 of 2026 2. The case of the petitioner, briefly stated, is as follows: a. The subject land was originally the property of the father of the petitioner and his father was in possession and enjoyment of the same since 1972. After the death of his father, the petitioner has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. Pattadar passbook was also issued in favour of the petitioner. In the year 2024, the petitioner partitioned the property between his two sons under a registered partition deed. Taking advantage of the ill-health of the petitioner and his hospitalization, the respondent No. 7 initiated action before the respondent No. 2 claiming rights over the property. Though the petitioner was ill, on receipt of a third notice, he appeared before the respondent No. 2 and produced all relevant documents. However, the authorities failed to properly appreciate them and solely basing on the alleged will deed produced by the respondent No.7 and said to be executed by the grandmother of the petitioner, the name of the petitioner was deleted. The will was never probated and acted upon and disclosed for nearly nine (9) years though it was alleged to be executed in the year 2016. Moreover, the respondent No. 7 has never sought for mutation of his name during this period. The petitioner appeared before the Sub-Collector through his counsel and filed a counter along with supporting documents and medical reports. However, the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer in favour of the respondent No. 7 was mechanically accepted, without proper appreciation of the evidence placed by the petitioner, by wrongly placing the burden on the petitioner. b. On 09.10.2025, the then Sub-Collector was transferred and the impugned order came to be passed with undue haste. Though the order speaks that the respondent No.7 filed an application under 4 BSB, J W.P.No.15821 of 2026 Section 6 of the Limitation Act, it was allowed. No such application was also found in the record. The order speaks of reference to Section 5 of the Limitation Act and the same demonstrates non-application of mind. Thus, the relief barred by limitation cannot be granted. The petitioner filed a suit in O.S. No. 251 of 2025 on the file of the Civil Court (Junior Division), Yemmiganur. I.A. No. 528 of 2025 was filed along with the suit. During the pendency of the suit, the respondent No.3 dismissed the revision petition vide Rc. D5/1342/2025, dated 16.05.2026, serving its copy on 12.06.2026 on the petitioner. Immediately thereafter, the respondent No.5 issued a notice vide Rc. B.215/2025, dated 10.06.2026, proposing mutation of the name of the respondent No. 7 in the webland / adangal records. The proceedings vide Rc. No. D5/1342/2025, dated 16.05.2026 passed by the respondent No.3 and the consequential proceedings vide Rc. B.215/2025, dated 10.06.2026 issued by the respondent No. 5 are illegal. The petitioner filed a review petition challenging the order of the respondent No. 3 / Joint Collector before the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration (C.C.L.A.), Andhra Pradesh and it is pending. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after the respondent No.3 confirmed the order of the respondent No.4 by which the matter was directed by the Tahsildar / respondent No. 5 to conduct enquiry afresh, a notice, dated 10.06.2026, was served giving a time of seven (7) days from the date of receipt of notice for submission of the reply. 4. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for revenue submitted that the petitioner could have submitted necessary documents in response to the notice and participated in the enquiry, instead of filing the writ petition. 5 BSB, J W.P.No.15821 of 2026 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that by the order of the respondent No. 5, the name of the petitioner was deleted from the revenue record and that during the course of fresh enquiry, the mutation would take effect pursuant to the order of the respondent No. 5. 6. The learned Assistant Government Pleader further submitted that since the impugned order confirms the remand order passed by the respondent No. 4, order directing mutation passed by the respondent No. 5 would not take effect and it is only after fresh enquiry is conducted, a decision would be passed recording mutation and as such, there is no sound basis for apprehension of the petitioner that his name would be deleted by mutating the entries in the revenue records. 7. In view thereof, the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to submit a reply to the notice, dated 10.06.2026, within a period of seven (7) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, whereupon, the respondent No. 5, after providing an opportunity to the petitioner for hearing shall pass an order as per law. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ B. S. BHANUMATHI, J Dt.22.06.2026 Note:- Issue C.C. by 25.06.2026 (B/o) RAR