Date of reserved for orders : 31.03.2026 Date of pronouncement : 14.07.2026 Date of uploading : 14.07.2026 APHC010005442026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3233] TUESDAY, THE 14th DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN WRIT PETITION NO: 454/2026 Between: 1. MANDAVALLI NAGA VEERA VENKATA SOMASEKHARA VIJAYA SARADHI, S/O. NAGA VENKATA SATHYA VENKATA- DURGA SOMA LINGA LAKSHMANARAO, AGED 48 YEARS, MALE, R/O. JANGAREDDIGUDEM VILLAGE MANDAL, ELURU DISTRICT- 534447. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-522237. 2. 2. THE JOINT COLLECTOR, ELURU DISTRICT, ELURU-534447. 3 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, JANGAREDDIGUDEM VILLAGE, ELURU DISTRICT-534447. 4. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, JANGAREDDIGUDEM MANDAL, JANGAREDDIGUDEM, ELURU DISTRICT-534447. 5. 5. CHITTAPURI NAGA SATYA VENKATA DURGA RAMAMANI, W/O. RAMAKRISHNA RAO, FEMALE, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.3- 136/2, BOSE CIRCLE, JANGAREDDIGUDEM, ELURU DISTRICT- 2 BKM,J W.P.No.454 of 2026 534447. 6. GUDIMETLA SOMESWARA RAO, S/O. MUTTAIH, AGE 75 YEARS, MALE, R/O.D.NO.13-15-6/1, MALLELA SRI RAMA MURTHY STREET, DURGA AGRAHARAM, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT- 520002. ...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 topleased to issue a writ, order or a direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari, call for the records relating to order in ROC.No.D2/91125/2025 Dated 29.12.2025 passed by the 2nd respondent, endorsement of the Mandal Tahsildar dated 09.04.2025 in ROC No.61/2025(A) and set aside the same in the interest of justice as it is illegal, irregular, arbitrary, violation of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (Act No. 26 of 1971) and Rules framed there of India passed by the 2 of the Mandal under and also offends Articles 14, 21 and 300 A of Constitution and quash the same order Dated 29.12.2025 nd respondent vide ROC.No.D2/91125/2025, endorsement Tahsildar dated 09.04.2025 in ROC No.61/2025(A) 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 dispense with the filing of the certified copy of the order passed by the 2nd respondent/Joint Collector in ROC.No.D2/91125/2025 Dated 29.12.2025 pending disposal of the main writ petition and pass IA NO: 2 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 not to mutuate revenue records relating to the survey numbers in 243, 263, 342, & 344 of Jangareddyguem Village and R.S.No.69-1, 69-2 of Gurvaigudem Village by duly suspending the order passed by the 2 respondent/Joint Collector in ROC.No.D2/91125/2025 Dated 29.12.2025 pending disposal of the main writ petition and pass IA NO: 3 OF 2026 3 BKM,J W.P.No.454 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 May be pleased to vacate the interim order granted by this Honble Court in W.P.No.454/2026, dated 07.01.2026 and dismiss the W.P.No.454/2026 and pass IA NO: 4 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 May be pleased to vacate the interim order dated 07.01.2026 in WP.No.454 of 2026 and dismiss the writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. MANGENA SREE RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. P R K AMERANDRA KUMAR 4 BKM,J W.P.No.454 of 2026 The Court made the following ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the official respondents and the learned counsel appearing for the unofficial respondents. 2. This writ petition is filed to quash the order passed by the 2nd respondent in Roc No.D2/91125/2025, dated 29.12.2025 by calling for the records and to pass such other order/s in the interest of justice. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 2nd respondent passed the impugned order dated 29.12.2025 allowing the Revision in-part and directed the 4th respondent to cancel the mutation entries standing in the name of the petitioner for the subject Survey Nos.243, 263, 342 and 354 of Jangareddigudem Village in R.S. Nos.69-1 and 69-2 of Guravaigudem Village, Jangareddigudem Mandal and consequently to effect the mutation in favour of the unofficial respondents for the remaining lands in accordance with law etc. He further submits that the petitioner is the absolute owner, possessor and enjoyer of the lands to an extent of Ac.2.93 cents in R.S. No.243, Ac.6.52 cents in R.S. No.263/1, Ac.8.06 cents in R.S. No.342, Ac.11.16 cents in R.S. No.344 of Jangareddigudem Village, Ac.2.61 cents of non-agricultural land including an extent of Ac.15.21 cents in R.S. No.69-1C, Ac.1.65 cents in R.S. No.69/2 of Guravaigudem Village standing in the name of the petitioner’s mother Mandavalli Gowri Subadhra. Thus, they are in possession and enjoyment of the said properties without any disturbance whatsoever. 5 BKM,J W.P.No.454 of 2026 4. Originally the petitioner’s grandfather Mandavalli Somaiah, S/o. Venkata Ramaiah adopted the petitioner’s father Mandavalli Naga Satya Venkata Durga Somalinga Lakshmana Rao in the year 1960 from his son-in-law Konakalla China Pullayya. The unofficial respondents / 5th respondent and another by name Gudimetla Satyavati, W/o. Someswara Rao / 6th respondent are the daughters of Konakalla China Pullayya. The said Konakalla China Pullayya instituted a suit against the petitioner and his mother Mandavalli Gowri Subadhra in O.S. No.371 of 1991 on the file of Principal District Munsif Court, Kovvuru and similarly, the petitioner’s mother and the petitioner (as minor) instituted another suit against the said Konakalla China Pullayya in O.S. No.47 of 1991 on the file of Subordinate Court at Kovvuru. Later on with the intervention of family elders, family disputes were settled out of the Court and they entered into a family agreement on 27.07.1997 between the petitioner and his mother as one party and the above said Konakalla China Pullayya, his sons and daughters including the unofficial respondents as another party by entering into a family settlement dated 13.08.1997. As per the said family Settlement Deed dated 13.08.1997, A-schedule property of the said document was fallen to the share of the petitioner and his mother, who are already in possession and enjoyment of the same. The details of the said property are as under: i) House property bearing D.No.9-77, ii) Building consisting of four shops along with godown, iii) 650 Sq. yds. of foundry site, 6 BKM,J W.P.No.454 of 2026 iv) Ac.8.06 cents in R.S. No.342, v) Ac.11.16 cents in R.S. No.344 and Ac.2.00 cents in R.S. No.346 - total Ac.13.16 cents, vi) Ac.10.00 cents in R.S. No.263, 243 out of Ac.20.00 cents and vii) Ac.19.00 cents in R.S. No.69/1C and Ac.1.65 cents in R.S. No.69/1 – total Ac.20.65 cents. 5. Thus they have been in actual physical possession and enjoyment of the above said properties with absolute rights and title over the said properties. Accordingly, Konakalla China Pullayya, the petitioner’s mother and the petitioner filed a Joint Memo dated 24.09.1997 before the learned Principal District Munsif Court, Kovvuru in O.S. No.366 of 1991 clearly mentioning that as per the family settlement dated 13.08.1997, the parties have taken possession of their respective shares and they are in possession and enjoyment of the same. Accordingly, recording the same, the suit was dismissed basing upon the Memo dated 24.09.1997. 6. As per the settlement deed dated 13.08.1997, the unofficial respondent No.5 and wife of the respondent No.6, the petitioner and his mother and other family members are all the signatories of the said document and as per the compromise, respective parties are enjoying their respective shares with absolute rights and they have been in possession and enjoyment of the same without any disturbance whatsoever and the revenue records are mutated as per the said arrangement long back. Subsequently, the petitioner’s mother and the petitioner partitioned the properties vide registered partition deed 7 BKM,J W.P.No.454 of 2026 dated 22.02.2018 in which all the properties fell to the share of the petitioner and the revenue records were mutated in the petitioner’s name basing upon the registered partition deed. This fact was known to one and all including the unofficial respondents who are the sister and sister’s husband of the petitioner’s father. 7. While so, the unofficial respondents / 5th & 6th respondents made representation to the 4th respondent dated 07.02.2025 seeking mutation of their names in the revenue records with regard to the lands to an extent of Ac.3.80 cents in R.S. No.263, Ac.4.04 cents in R.S. No.342, Ac.5.53 cents in R.S. No.344 and Ac.8.50 cents in R.S. No.243 of Jangareddigudem Village and Ac.5.47 cents in R.S. No.69/1 and Ac.0.71 cents in R.S. No.69/2 of Gurvaigudem Village of Jangareddigudem Mandal and issuance of pattadar pass books and title deeds for the said lands. Then the 4th respondent gave endorsement for the said representation of the unofficial respondents vide ROC No.61/2025(A) dated 09.04.2025 holding that mutation in the revenue records in favour of the petitioner and his mother were held long back i.e., two decades ago and he is not authorized to cancel the said mutation at this stage and accordingly rejected the claim of the said respondents and directed them to approach the Appellate Authority / Revisional Authority as provided u/s.9 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (Act No.26 of 1971). Questioning the same, the unofficial respondents filed W.P. No.10675 of 2025 without impleading the petitioner and his mother as parties 8 BKM,J W.P.No.454 of 2026 to the said writ petition and the same was disposed of vide order dated 01.05.2025 and accordingly the unofficial respondents filed Revision before the 2nd respondent in ROC No.D2/91125/2025 and the same was allowed on 29.12.2025 thereby cancelling the mutation of the petitioner and his mother in the revenue records. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition is filed. 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.5 and 6 submits that the unofficial respondents are the owners and possessors of the agricultural land covered to an extent of Ac.7.60 cents in R.S. No.263, Ac.8.08 cents in R.S. No.342, Ac.11.06 cents in R.S. No.344, Ac.17.00 cents in R.S. No.243 situated at Jangareddigudem Village and Ac.10.93 cents in R.S. No.69/1 and Ac.1.53 cents in R.S. No.69/2 situated at Guruvaigudem Village of Jangareddigudem Mandal, Eluru District. Originally, the said land and other lands belong to one Sri Mandavalli Somaiah, S/o. V.V.Venkata Ramaiah, who is none other than the maternal grandfather of the 5th respondent and the wife of 6th respondent. The said Somaiah had wife by name Seethamma and two daughters by names Pushpavathi and Venkata Ratnam. The said Somaiah died leaving the said family members. During his life time, the joint family properties were divided among the family members. Pushpavathi’s husband by name Konakalla China Pullaiah succeeded the properties and the said couple had eight children, out of which, the wife of 6th respondent and 5th respondent got the schedule mentioned lands under the Will deed dated 30.04.1961 executed by their maternal grandfather by name 9 BKM,J W.P.No.454 of 2026 Mandavalli Somaiah who bequeathed the schedule properties in favour of them equally. 9. After the death of Somaiah, the unofficial respondents became the owners of the property, but those properties were managed by the maternal grandmother till their marriages by paying the net income to them. Konakalla China Pullaiah and the grandmother of the unofficial respondents colluded together and the said land was shown as their own. After the death of Mandavalli Somaiah, the entire land was managed by Mandavalli Seethamma and others. As the said lands were excess in holding in their hands, the Land Reforms Tribunal in Case No.1272/PLV/75, declared that the lands held by the unofficial respondents are the surplus lands. Hence there was an order of Land Reforms Tribunal, Eluru in L.C.C. No.1272/75 dated 16.11.1981 and as per the said orders, the declarant’s family unit was holding the land equivalent to 1.5714 standard holding in excess of the ceiling area which is liable to be surrendered. Against the said orders, Mandavalli Seethamma and others without showing the 5th and 6th respondents as the owners of the property, preferred appeal L.R.A.C. No.5/82. During the pendency of the said appeal, the unofficial respondents herein came to know that the Land Reforms Tribunal, Eluru vide the above said order directed to surrender the said lands belonging to them and filed I.A. No.203 of1982 in L.R.A.C. No.5/82 to implead them as proper and necessary parties claiming that the land which was directed to be surrendered vide order of the above said authority in the above 10 BKM,J W.P.No.454 of 2026 said LCC was allotted to them. During the course of enquiry, they categorically deposed that Sri Mandavalli Somaiah executed a last testament (Will) dated 30.04.1961 and allotted the said land in their favour. As per the recitals of the Will, the executants and his adopted son divided the properties and bequeathed the properties to his legatees with absolute rights as under: Jangareddygudem Village. R.S.No.263 an extent of Ac.7.60 cents, R.S.No.342 an extent of Ac.8.80 cents, R.S.No.344 an extent of Ac.11.06 cents, R.S.No.243 an extent of Ac.17.00 cents, Guruvaigudem Village. R.S.No.69/1 an extent of Ac.10.93 cents R.S.No.69/2 an extent of Ac.1.53 cents 10. On proving of the said Will before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, it was concluded that the petition schedule properties shall be excluded from the holding of declarants family and that the lands mentioned in the schedule are non-surplus land and the appeal was allowed. During the course of hearing before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal Case No.5/82 neither the writ petitioner nor his family members raised disputes with regard to the execution of the Will by late Mandavalli Somaiah who bequeathed the properties by allotting them to the share of the unofficial respondents herein. Now that the writ petitioner took a stand that the properties in the mentioned schedule are exclusive properties of their own and mutated their names in the 11 BKM,J W.P.No.454 of 2026 revenue records. As per Section 9 of the ROR Act, the Revisional Authority has got the power to set right the issue while dealing with the Revision and necessary directions can be issued to the recording authority / the Tahsildar, Jangareddygudem to incorporate the names of the unofficial respondents herein / petitioners therein in the revenue records as well as the web land in respect of the properties in Jangareddygudem Village - R.S.No.263 an extent of Ac.7.60 cents, R.S. No.342 an extent of Ac.8.80 cents, R.S. No.344 an extent of Ac.11.06 cents, R.S. No.243 an extent of Ac.17.00 cents and in Guruvaigudem Village - R.S. No.69/1 an extent of Ac.10.93 cents, R.S. No.69/2 an extent of Ac.1.53 cents, by setting aside the orders of the Tahsildar, Jangareddygudem in ROC No.61/2025(A) dated 09.04.2025. The writ petitioner by way of fraud claiming the land belonging to them and incorporated his name in the revenue records by suppressing the orders passed in LRAC No.5/82 dated 17.06.1972. Neither the writ petitioner nor his mother challenged the orders passed by the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal in L.R.A.C. No.5/82 dated 17.06.1982 before the appropriate forum but the said order was challenged by the Government by way of C.R.P. before the Hon’ble High Court. 11. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the 2nd respondent submits that pursuant to the orders of this Hon’ble Court in W.P. No.10675 of 2025 dated 01.05.2025, the unofficial respondents herein filed the above said Revision under Section 9 of the A.P. 12 BKM,J W.P.No.454 of 2026 ROR Act, 1971 against the endorsement of the Tahsildar, Jangareddygudem in ROC No.61/2025(A) dated 09.04.2025. After hearing all the parties concerned, the 2nd respondent passed the impugned order in ROC No.D2/911125/2025 dated 29.12.2025. The Land Reforms Tribunal, Eluru in L.C.C. No.1272/Plv/75 passed an order dated 16.11.1981 declaring that the declarant Sri Mandavalli Lakshmananrao’s family unit has more than the ceiling area and held equivalent to 1.5714 standard holdings in excess of ceiling as per the notified date i.e., 01.10.1975 and ordered Smt. Mandavalli Veera Venkata Seethamma - wife of Somaiah, Mandavalli Gowri Subadhra and Mandavalli Someswara Rao to surrender the excess land on behalf of the deceased declarant Sri Mandavalli Lakshmananrao. Smt. Mandavalli Veera Venkata Seethamma preferred an appeal before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, West Godavari, Eluru in L.R.A.C. No.5/82. The unofficial respondents herein / the Revision Petitioners therein filed I.A. No.203 of 1982 in L.R.A.C. No.5/82 claiming the ownership of the schedule property included as per the Will Deed dated 30.04.1961 executed by Sri Mandavalli Somaiah. The Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, West Godavari after enquiry identified that the following properties are bequeathed on the legatees with the absolute rights. Jangareddygudem Village R.S.No.263 - Ac.7.60 cents R.S.No.342 - Ac.8.80 cents R.S.No.344 - Ac.11.06 cents R.S.No.243 - Ac.17.00 cents Guruvaygudem Village R.S.No.69/1 - Ac.10.93 cents R.S.No.69/2 – Ac.1.53 cents 13 BKM,J W.P.No.454 of 2026 12. The Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, West Godavari in its orders dated 17.06.1982 allowed the appeal and the subject lands were declared as non-surplus lands on the basis of the Will Deed dated 30.04.1961. As the Will was attested by the witness in the L.R.A.T., West Godavari, the Will has been considered as genuine. The petitioner / 1st respondent in the Revision Petition depended on the Settlement Deed dated 13.08.1997 in which the family has partitioned the lands available at that point of time between Sri Mandavalli Vijaya Saradhi and Sri Konakalla China Pullaiah. As the same is unregistered, the genuinity cannot be verified and the same is disputed by the unofficial respondents herein / the Revision Petitioners therein. Mere entries in revenue records do not confer title and once title is established by a competent tribunal, mutation is only a consequential act. Accordingly, the endorsement of the Tahsildar, Jangareddigudem was set aside by the Revisional Authority in the above said impugned order dated 29.12.2025. The Revisional Authority observed that the petitioner has alienated portions of the subject lands in favour of third parties. Since the said purchasers are not parties to the present Revision Petition, the validity of such alienations cannot be adjudicated in their absence, the mutations already effected in favour of third parties shall not be disturbed. Accordingly, the impugned Revision Petition was partly allowed by passing the above said impugned order dated 29.12.2025 directing the Tahsildar, Jangareddigudem Mandal to cancel the mutation entries standing in the name of the petitioner alone in respect of the remaining extents of the subject survey numbers, excluding the lands already 14 BKM,J W.P.No.454 of 2026 alienated to third parties and to effect mutation in favour of the unofficial respondents herein for the balance lands in accordance with law and for an appropriate relief before a competent Civil Court in respect of the alienated lands. 13. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the following decisions of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Yamunanagar Cooperative House Building Society, M.Lakshminarasaiah v. Government of A.P. 1 and Koyya Veeraju v. Mandal Revenue Officer, Gollaprolu, East Godavari District2. He also relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Joint Collector Ranga Reddy v. D.Narsing Rao3. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the unofficial respondents relied upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Kale & others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others 4 and Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority & others v. M/s. Scope Sales Pvt. Ltd. & another and State of Bihar v. M/s. Scope Sales Pvt. Ltd. & others5 . 14. In the backdrop of the above said facts and circumstances, upon consideration of the submissions made on both sides and on perusal of the material available on record, it is to be seen that the 6th and 5th respondents 1 [1997] Supreme (AP) 437 2 [1998] 6 ALD 594 3 AIR 2015 SC 1021 4 AIR 1976 SC 807 5 Civil Appeal Nos.929 of 2020 & 930 of 2020 dated 23.01.2026 15 BKM,J W.P.No.454 of 2026 gave representation to the 4th respondent dated 07.02.2025 with a request to mutate their names for the lands to an extent of Ac.3.80 cents in R.S. No.263, Ac.4.04 cents in R.S. No.342, Ac.5.53 cents in R.S. No.344 and Ac.8.50 cents in R.S. No.243 of Jangareddigudem Village and Ac.5.47 cents in R.S. No.69/1 and Ac.0.71 cents in R.S. No.69/2 of Gurvaigudem Village of Jangareddigudem Mandal and issuance of pattadar pass books and title deeds for the said lands and in pursuance of the same, general notice was issued by the said authority dated 14.02.2025 for conducting enquiry. Consequently, the 6th respondent gave a statement dated 22.03.2025 saying that his wife Smt. Gudimetla Satya Sita Mahalakshmi inherited the subject land from her father Sri Mandavalli Somaiah through a Will dated 30.04.1961. He further stated that as per the orders passed by the Land Reforms Tribunal Court in L.R.A.C. No.5/82 and I.A. No.203/82 in L.R.A.C. No.5/82 dated 17.06.1982, the 6th and 5th respondents have been granted half of the total extent of land in the aforementioned survey numbers. Following the demise of his wife, the 6th respondent sought mutation of his name in the revenue records. Similarly, the representative of the 5th respondent also attended before the said authority and stated similar contentions referring to the said Will dated 30.04.1961 requesting the mutation of his name in the revenue records. Ultimately, the 4th respondent, upon consideration of the above said representation and statements, came to conclusion that the 6th and 5th respondents sought for cancellation of mutation of the existing entries in respect of the extents Ac.8.06 cents in R.S. No.342, Ac.11.06 cents in R.S. 16 BKM,J W.P.No.454 of 2026 No.344, Ac.6.52 cents in R.S. No.263/1 and Ac.2.93 cents in R.S. No.243-1B of Jangareddigudem Village and Ac.17.82 cents in R.S. No.69/1C and Ac.1.65 cents in R.S. No.69/2 of Guravaigudem Village and to mutate all the names of the said respondents for the subject lands. 15. 15. Upon consideration of the available copies of pattadar pass books and entries in electronically maintained Records of Rights i.e., Webland, he found that the subject lands in Jangareddigudem and Guruvaigudem, claimed by the 6th and 5th respondents are already got mutated in favour of the petitioner and his mother vide Patta No.1310 and Patta No.694 of Jangareddigudem and Guruvaigudem Villages respectively more than two decades ago. He further opined that as per the provisions of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passook Act, 1971, the Recording Authority i.e., the 4th respondent is not authorized to enquire or cancel the settled mutation entries as the Act explicitly confers such authority upon the Appellate and Revisional Authorities as specified in the said provisions. Hence the said 4th respondent gave endorsement dated 09.04.2025 to the 6th and 5th respondents allowing them to file a revision before the Revision Authorities as per Section 9 of the said Act. 16. Questioning the same, the respondent Nos.5 and 6 filed Revision before the 2nd respondent in which the petitioner is the 1st respondent and the 4th respondent is the 2nd respondent therein. Then the said Revision Petition was taken on file, notice has been issued on both the parties therein and the report of the 4th respondent was called for. Then the 2nd respondent / 17 BKM,J W.P.No.454 of 2026 Revisional Authority also found that the name of the petitioner herein was mutated to an extent of Ac.2.93 cents in R.S. No.243 and his name is recorded in the manual Adangal from the fasli year 1420 onwards for the subject land. The petitioner herein is in enjoyment of an extent of Ac.4.47 cents in R.S. No.263/1 and his name is recorded for an extent of Ac.6.52 cents in manual Adangal from 25.03.2012 and Sri Mandavalli Somalinga Lakshmanarao name is recorded in 10(i) Adangal. The petitioner herein is also in enjoyment of Ac.7.47 cents in R.S. No.342 and his name is recorded for an extent of Ac.8.06 cents in manual Adangal from 26.03.2012 and the name of the respondent is noted in 10(i) Adangal. The petitioner name is recorded for an extent of Ac.11.16 cents in R.S. No.344 and the name of the petitioner is noted in 10(i) Adangal. The R.S. No.69-1 of Guruvaigudem Village is sub-divided and an extent of Ac.15.21 cents is recorded in the name of Mandavalli Gowri Subadhra who is the mother of the petitioner herein. Ac.1.65 cents in R.S. No.69-2 of Guruvaigudem Village is recorded in the name of petitioner’s mother and her husband Sri Mandavalli Somalinga Lakshmanarao is noted as pattadar for fasli year 1403 i.e., year 1993. 17. The petitioner contended in the said Revision that he is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the subject land from long ago and even his mother Smt. Mandavalli Gowri Subadhra and himself partitioned the properties as per the Registered Deed No.1322/2018 dated 22.02.2018 and also obtained pattadar pass books and title deeds. The unofficial respondents 18 BKM,J W.P.No.454 of 2026 did not take any steps either before the revenue authorities or before the competent Civil Court questioning the title and possession of the petitioner and his mother over the subject properties and mutations thereupon and hence their claim was barred by limitation. The O.S. No.366 of 1991 and O.S. No.371 of 1991 on the file of Principal Munsif Court, Kovvur, for grant of permanent injunction instituted by Sri Konakalla China Pullaiah and Smt. Mandavalli Gowri Subadhra respectively were dismissed on account of compromise and family settlement deed dated 13.08.1997 vide order dated 24.09.1997. As per the said settlement, the ‘A’ schedule properties were devolved upon him and ‘B’ schedule properties were devolved upon Sri Konakalla China Pullaiah. As the possession and enjoyment of the pattadar will be taken into account for mutation, the petitioner was given pattadar pass books and title deeds as stated above. Only the Civil Courts are competent to decide the title disputes, if any. However, the Revisional Authority observed that the Land Reforms Tribunal, Eluru in L.C.C. No.1272/Plv/75 passed an order dated 16.11.1981 holding that the declarant Sri Mandavalli Lakshmananrao’s family unit has got more than the ceiling area of the land equivalent to 1.5714 standard holdings in excess of ceiling as per the notified date i.e., 01.10.1975 and ordered Smt. Mandavalli Veera Venkata Seethamma - wife of Somaiah, Mandavalli Gowri Subadhra and Mandavalli Someswara Rao to surrender the excess land on behalf of the deceased declarant Sri Mandavalli Lakshmananrao. Smt. Mandavalli Veera Venkata Seethamma preferred an appeal before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, 19 BKM,J W.P.No.454 of 2026 West Godavari, Eluru in L.R.A.C. No.5/82. The unofficial respondents herein / the Revision Petitioners therein filed I.A. No.203 of 1982 in L.R.A.C. No.5/82 claiming the ownership of the schedule property included as per the Will deed dated 30.04.1961 executed by Sri Mandavalli Somaiah. The Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, West Godavari after enquiry identified that the following properties are bequeathed on the legatees with the absolute rights. Jangareddygudem Village R.S.No.263 - Ac.7.60 cents R.S.No.342 - Ac.8.80 cents R.S.No.344 - Ac.11.06 cents R.S.No.243 - Ac.17.00 cents Guruvaygudem Village R.S.No.69/1 - Ac.10.93 cents R.S.No.69/2 – Ac.1.53 cents 18. The said Appellate Tribunal in its order dated 17.06.1982, allowed the appeal and the subject lands were declared as non surplus on the basis of the Will deed dated 30.04.1961. Whereas the petitioner herein/1st respondent in the Revision relied upon the family Settlement Deed dated 13.08.1997 in which the family has partitioned the lands available at that point of time between the petitioner herein and Sri Konakalla China Pullaiah. Considering the orders passed by the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, West Godavari, Eluru, dated 17.06.1982 relying upon the Will Deed dated 30.04.1961 and the family settlement Deed dated 13.08.1997, the Revisional Authority held that the unofficial respondents / petitioners therein established valid title over the schedule properties by further observing that the family settlement deed dated 13.08.1997 cannot prevail over the earlier adjudicated document dated 20 BKM,J W.P.No.454 of 2026 30.04.1961 by the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal vide order dated 17.06.1982. Accordingly, the endorsement of the 4th respondent was found to be unsustainable and it was set aside by the Revisional Authority. However having observed that the petitioner herein/1st respondent therein alienated portions of the subject lands in favour of the third parties and as the said purchasers were not the parties in the said Revision, the mutation already affected in favour of the third parties shall not be disturbed, still the Revision was allowed in-part. The 4th respondent was directed to cancel the mutation entries standing in the name of the petitioner herein for the subject survey Nos.243, 263, 342 and 354 of Jangareddigudem Village in R.S. No.69-1 and 69-2 of Guravayagudem Village, Jangareddigudem Mandal. The Revisional Authority however further observed that this must be done excluding the lands already alienated to the third parties by the respondent therein / petitioner herein and the petitioners therein / unofficial respondents herein were advised to seek appropriate relief before the competent Civil Court in respect of alienated lands. 19. On careful reading of the impugned order of the 2nd respondent / Revisional Authority, it is clear that the petitioner’s contentions were not appreciated fully and the order in I.A. No.203/1982 in L.R.A.C. No.5/82 dated 17.06.1982 was only considered to rely upon the Will Deed dated 30.04.1961 said to have been executed by Sri Mandavalli Somaiah. The said Will was not fallen for consideration before the Land Reforms Tribunal, Eluru in L.C.C. 21 BKM,J W.P.No.454 of 2026 No.1272/Plv/75 dated 16.11.1981. The unofficial respondents herein by way of impleadment filed the above said I.A. at the appellate stage before the Appellate Tribunal and invited the said order dated 17.06.1982 first time pressing upon the Will Deed dated 30.04.1961. There was no opportunity for the parties concerned to dispute the above said Will Deed dated 30.04.1961 before the appropriate Forum / Tribunal / Court and it was not subjected to trial to see the genuinity or otherwise of the same and its consequences thereon. Even as per the family settlement deed dated 13.08.1997 when all the family members concerned/signatories to it were given possession and enjoyment of their portions of the subject lands by acting upon the same immediately, the Revisional Authority ought not to have held that it cannot prevail over the Will Deed dated 30.04.1961. The Revisional Authority ought to have seen that the unofficial respondents herein are relying upon the Will Deed dated 30.04.1961 after 4 ½ decades first time before the Revenue Authorities concerned without seeking any declaration from the competent Civil Court and the petitioner herein and his mother are relying upon the registered partition deed No.1322/2018 dated 22.02.2018 and the family settlement deed dated 13.08.1997 and the disposal of O.S. Nos.360/1991 and 371/1991 on the file of Principal Munsif Court, Kovvur and held that it is purely a civil dispute relating to title and possession over the subject lands and directed the parties concerned to approach the competent Civil Court u/s.8 of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971. The Revisional Authority has no jurisdiction to give any declaration with regard to the Will 22 BKM,J W.P.No.454 of 2026 Deed dated 30.04.1961 about the genuinity or otherwise of the same and binding nature of the family settlement deed dated 13.08.1997 in the facts and circumstances of this case. 20. Having not interfered with the alienations made by the petitioner herein with respect to some of the subject lands and directed the unofficial respondents herein to approach the competent Civil Court for declaration in so far as the said properties of alienation concerned and ordering alterations of mutations in respect of the balance subject properties in favour of the unofficial respondents herein by deleting the names of the petitioner and others concerned if any is self contradictory and contrary to law. Hence, it is liable to be set aside. The endorsement of the 4th respondent dated 09.04.2025 is valid and not to be interfered with at this stage. The unofficial respondents are directed to approach the competent Civil Court for declaration and recovery of possession of the subject lands if any covered under the impugned order of the 2nd respondent dated 29.12.2025 and subject to the outcome of the same, they can approach the Revenue Authorities concerned afresh for alteration of the mutations if any over the subject lands in accordance with law. There shall be an order of status quo as on today to be maintained with respect to the mutations of the parties concerned over the subject lands. In the result, the impugned order of the 2nd respondent dated 29.12.2025 is set aside herewith. 23 BKM,J W.P.No.454 of 2026 21. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Interim order if any deemed to have been vacated As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE B. KRISHNA MOHAN Date : 14.07.2026 PND Whether the order is : Speaking ☑ Reasoned Reportable Non-reportable ☑