Date of reserved for orders : Date of pronouncement : 23.06.2026 Date of uploading : APHC010120502018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] TUESDAY, THE 23rd DAY OF JUNE 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 5351/2018 Between: 1. NEDAMPALLI TIRUPATHI RAJU, S/O APPALA NARSIMJHARAJU, 65 YEARS., R/O. THAGARAMPUDI VILLAGE, ANAKAPALLI MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT , VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. TAHSILDAR, ANAKAPALLI MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI, VISAKHAPATNAM 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 to issue writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in not mutating the entries of the property from the said land of and extent of Ac.1.68 cts out of Ac.6.46 cts in Sy.No.51 patta No.139 of Thagarmpudi Village, Anakaplli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District without recourse to laws as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of principles of natural justice consequently directing 2 VS,J W.P.No.5351 of 2018 the 2ng respondent to consider the notice dt.26-12-2017 issued by the petitioner for mutation of the entries in his favor and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2018 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 not to meddle with property of an extant of Ac.1.68 cts out of Ac.6.46 cts in Sy.No.51 patta No.139 of Thagarmpudi Village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. T V S PRABHAKARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE (AP) The Court made the following: 3 VS,J W.P.No.5351 of 2018 ORDER: This Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following prayer: “to issue writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in not mutating the entries of the property from the said land of and extent of Ac.1.68 cts out of Ac.6.46 cts in Sy.No.51 patta No.139 of Thagarmpudi Village, Anakaplli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District without recourse to laws as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of principles of natural justice consequently directing the 2ng respondent to consider the notice dt.26-12- 2017 issued by the petitioner for mutation of the entries in his favor and pass” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is in continuous possession of the land admeasuring Acs.1.68 cents out of Acs.6.46 cents in Sy.No.51 of Thagarmpudi village, Anakapalli mandal, Visakhaptnam district, which devolved upon him from his grandfather by name Nadimpalli Sitharama Raju, who purchased the same vide document No.2104/1973, dated 08.10.1973. 3. While the things stood thus, when the petitioner approached the 2nd respondent for mutation of his name in the revenue records, as no steps were initiated for incorporating the name of the petitioner though he has put forward all the required documents, the present writ petition is filed. 4 VS,J W.P.No.5351 of 2018 4. The 2nd respondent filed a detailed counter affidavit denying the averments made by the petitioner and further stated that initially, one Nadimpalli Sitharama Raju (grandfather of the petitioner) purchased a land admeasuring Acs.1.68 cents out of Acs.6.46 cents in Sy.No.51 of Tagarampudi village, Anakapalli mandal from Sri. Nandavarapu Kannayya by way of a registered sale deed bearing No.2104/1973, dated 10.10.1973. Thereafter, during 1991-92, the said land was acquired by the B.C. Corporation, Visakhapatnam from Sri. Nadimpalli Sitharama Raju under Social Welfare Scheme on payment of market value. After acquisition, the said land became a Government property and accordingly, mutations were incorporated in the revenue records specifying it as „Government land‟. Thereafter, the housing department has also sanctioned nearly 90 houses to poor people belonging to BC, OC and SC community. The entire land is currently covered by buildings and as such, the petitioner cannot contend that he is in possession of the subject land. Hence, requested to dismiss the writ petition. 5. Heard Sri. T.V.S. Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. 6. Perused the entire material available on record. It is the case of the petitioner that the subject property devolved upon him from his grandfather by name Nadimpalli Seetharama Raju; that when he approached the concerned authorities for mutating his name in the revenue records, the 5 VS,J W.P.No.5351 of 2018 respondent authorities have not initiated any action. On the other hand, it can be seen from the counter affidavit that though the grandfather of the petitioner purchased the subject land under a registered sale deed dated 10.10.1973, subsequently, during 1991-92, the subject land was acquired by B.C. Corporation, Visakhapatnam upon paying the market value. In support of the same, the respondents have filed a copy of the adangal, a perusal of which shows that the land admeasuring Acs.6.46 cents in Sy.No.51 is a Government land. Even otherwise, the petitioner, except filing a copy of the registered sale deed executed in the year 1973 in favour of his grandfather, has failed to furnish any other documentary proof that he is in possession of the subject land. 7. In the absence of any material to prove that the subject land is owned by the petitioner and that he is in possession of the same as on the date of filing of the present writ petition, this Court cannot draw a view that there is negligence on the part of the respondents in mutating the name of the petitioner‟s name in revenue records. If the petitioner has any grievance with regard to the entries made in the revenue records with regard to the subject land, he is always at liberty to challenge the same before appropriate forum, but not by way of the present writ petition. 6 VS,J W.P.No.5351 of 2018 8. In view of the above, the petitioner is at liberty to challenge the entries made in the revenue records pertaining to the subject land, if at all he is aggrieved. 9. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Petition shall stand closed. _____________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA 23.06.2026 Gss Whether the order is : Speaking Yes/No / Recorded Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No