APHC010371852026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] MONDAY, THE 17th DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 20872/2026 Between: 1. THATAPUDI JESUDAS PREM KUMAR, S/O. JUSUDAS, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/O. DR NO- 8-100/1, KANIGIRI TOWN AND MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 2. THATAPUDI VIJAY KUMAR,, S/O. JUSUDAS, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O. DR NO- 8-100/1, KANIGIRI TOWN AND MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT- 522238 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MARKAPUR, MARKAPUR DISTRICT- 523316 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KANIGIRI MANDAL, MARKAPUR DISTRICT-523230 4. THE THASILDAR, KANIGIRI MANDAL, MARKAPUR DISTRICT- 523230 5. VOOLA SUNDAR RAO, S/O. SIKHAMANI, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, R/O. DR NO- 18-507, MALLIKARJUNA NAGAR, MALKAJGIRI, HYDERABAD-500047 6. UPENDRA YOGESH KOTAK, S/O. YOGESH KOTAK, AGED 36 YEARS, R/O. PLOT NO. 26, FIRST FLOOR, VIMAN NAGAR COLONY, RASOOL PURA, SECUNDERABAD, TELANGANA STATE- 500003 7. JANAPAREDDY S V R SANTHOSH KUMAR, S/O. SATYA RAO, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS. R/0. PEDDAPADU, ATCHUTAPURAM VISAKAPATNAM DISTRICT-531011 ...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 toIssue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature a WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the in action of the 4th respondent in mutating the name of the 5th respondent in online revenue Web Land Record of Rights (ROR) pertaining to petitioner's land admeasuring Ac. 0.36 cents in Survey No. 531-1 of Kanigiri Town and Mandal, Markapur District., without issuing any prior notice to petitioner, without conducting any enquiry whatsoever, and without adhering tu the mandatory procedure prescribed under law, though we made representation to the respondent 2 to 4 dt. 01-07- 2026, 02-07-2026 respectively, as illegal, arbitrary, malafide, a gross abuse and colorable exercise of power, in flagrant of petitioner's fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14,19 (1) (g), 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and against the provisions of Sec. 5(3) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971, Consequently direct the 4th respondent to forthwith to delete the 5th respondent name in the online Web Land Records of Rights, Adangal, 1-B Register and all connected revenue records, and record dispute/court suit pending/ digitally unsigned in web land record of rights connected to petitioner's said land until disposal of the suit in OS No. 04/2016 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge Kanigiri., pending disposal of the main writ petition 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 Direct the respondent No. 2 to 4 to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 01-07-2026, 02-07-2026 respectively, to delete the 5th respondent name/6th,7th respondent names from online Web Land Record of Rights (ROR) pertaining connected to our land admeasuring Ac. 0.36 cents in Sy No. 531-1 of Kanigiri Town and Mandal, Markapur District., and to record the dispute/court suit pending/digitally unsigned in web land record of rights connected to petitioners said land until disposal of the suit in OS No. 04 of 2016 on the file of Junior Civil Judge :: Kanigiri, pending disposal of the main writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. PAVAN KUMAR PASUPULETI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER Heard Sri Pavan Kumar Pasupuleti, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Divya Teja, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondents 1 to 4. 2. Notice to the respondents 5 to 7 is dispensed with, since no adverse order affecting their rights is passed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that an extent of Ac.0.36 cents in S.No.531-1 of Kanigiri Town & Mandal, Markapur District, originally belonged to the 5th respondent’s mother by name Vajramma. The said Vajramma executed an agreement of sale in favour of the petitioners’ father on 09.04.1990. The petitioners filed suit O.S.No.4 of 2016 on the file of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kanigiri, seeking specific performance against the 5th respondent and others, and the said suit is pending. He would also submit that the petitioners made a representation dated 02.07.2026 (Ex.P1) to the 4th respondent not to update the records of rights in the name of the 5th respondent, in respect of Ac.0.36 cents in S.No.531-1. He would submit that without considering the Ex.P1 representation, the 4th respondent updated the records of rights in the name of the 5th respondent. 4. Sri Divya Teja, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondents 1 to 4 would submit that if the petitioners are aggrieved by the updation of records of rights in the name of 5th respondent, they shall have to invoke the appropriate remedies either under Section 5 (4) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for short “the Act”) or a revision under Section 9 of the Act. He would further submit that the petitioners are yet to get title to the subject property. 5. Thus, as seen from the material available on record, the petitioners and others filed suit O.S.No.4 of 2016 on the file of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kanigiri, seeking specific performance of agreement of sale, against the 5th respondent and others. As seen from Ex.P2, the name of the 5th respondent is shown as owner and possessor of Ac.0.36 cents in S.No.531-1. Since the 5th respondent’s name is updated in the records of rights and if the petitioners are aggrieved by such updation, they have to approach the appropriate authority under the provisions of the Act. The representation dated 02.07.2026 (Ex.P1) would not give rise to any cause of action to file the writ petition. 6. Given the discussion supra, this Court does not find any merit in this writ petition, and hence, it is liable to be dismissed. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is Dismissed. No order as to costs. This order will not preclude the petitioners from seeking appropriate remedies before the appropriate forum. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI PVD