Dismissed

Smt. D. Obulamma, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC1 Aug 2023WP/7922/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the mutation of names in revenue records. The court held that the petitioner must exercise the statutory appeal right under the Rights in Land Act instead of filing a writ, and declined to adjudicate the title dispute.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition seeking mutation of names in revenue records was dismissed; the petitioner is directed to approach the competent authority via statutory appeal.

Smt. D. Obulamma, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Land Acquisition | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION No.7922 OF 2020

¶2

Smt. D.Obulamma, W/o. Late Venkata Subbareddy Aged about 62 years, Occ: Agricultural, R/o. Irlapadu Village, Marripadu Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

¶3

… Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District, A.P. and five others.

¶6

… Respondents

¶7

Counsels for the petitioner : M/s. G.Jagadeeshwar Counsel for respondents : GP for Revenue

¶8

ORDER

¶9

The present writ petition is filed seeking the following

¶10

relief:

¶11

“… to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondent No.4 in not correcting the wrong entries and not mutating the name of the petitioner in the revenue records pertaining to the land of the petitioner an extent of Ac.5.06 cents in Sy.No.47/2A of Irlapadu Village, Marripadu Mandal, SPSR Nellore District is as illegal, irregular, arbitrary, unjust and against the principles of natural justice, consequently directing the respondents to mutate the name of the petitioner in the revenue records forthwith and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case”.

¶12

Page 2 of 5

¶13

SRS, J W.P.No.7922/2020

¶14

In the affidavit it was contended that an extent of Ac.5.06 cents in Sy.No.47/2A of Irlapadu Village, belonged to petitioner’s father-in-law by name D.Chenchireddy. During the life time of father-in-law, he proposed to give the above extent of Ac.5.06 cents to Indla Ramaiah. The said Indla Ramaiah expressed his helplessness to cultivate the land. Indla Ramaiah executed two agreements of sale on 10.02.1976 and on 15.06.1978 in favour of petitioner’s husband. The 5^th respondent manipulated the documents and managed to keep his name mutated in 1B Adangal, as if he purchased the property from Y.Polamma. Petitioner’s husband approached the 4^th respondent and requested him to provide the copies of 1B Adangal and also relevant records. Petitioner’s husband also made applications under RTI Act to the 4^th respondent. Petitioner made representation and also application in Spandana programme on 01.08.2019, 23.08.2019 and on 13.09.2019 seeking correction of entires. Since, there is no response, above writ petition is filed.

¶15

Heard Sri G.Jagadeeshwar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue.

¶16

Page 3 of 5

¶17

SRS, J W.P.No.7922/2020

¶18

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue on instructions would submit that name of the 5^th respondent was updated in the revenue records in respect of Ac.5.06 cents in Sy.No.47/2A on 17.11.2016. Since 17.11.2016, the name of the 5^th respondent is being reflected as possessor. Petitioner was asked to submit documents, however, she couldn’t produce any documents to prove her rights.

¶19

The grievance of the petitioner as seen from the pleadings is that name of the 5^th respondent has been mutated in respect of Ac.5.06 cents in Sy.No.47/2A of Irlapadu Village, Marripadu Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

¶20

As per the instructions of learned Government Pleader for Revenue, the name of the 5^th respondent was updated in Record of Rights on 17.11.2016. Petitioner, if he is aggrieved against such updation of revenue records, had right of appeal under Section 5(5) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971. Instead of filing appeal, the petitioner made representations to the authorities. As seen from the affidavit, petitioner is claiming the property by virtue of agreements of sale purchased by her husband on 10.02.1976 and on 15.06.1978.

¶21

Page 4 of 5

¶22

SRS, J W.P.No.7922/2020

¶23

This Hon’ble Court under while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India shall not go into title dispute. As pointed supra, if the petitioner is aggrieved regarding the failure of the respondent authorities in following the procedure, he had right appeal under section 5(5) of the Act. The relief sought for the writ petition, in the opinion of this court, is misconceived and such relief cannot be granted. There are no merits in the writ petition and the same is liable to dismissed.

¶24

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, this order doesn’t preclude the petitioner to file before the competent authority questioning the updation of revenue records in favour of 5^th respondent. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶25

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand dismissed.

¶26

________________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶27

Date : 01.08.2023 BSK

¶28

Page 5 of 5

¶29

SRS, J W.P.No.7922/2020

¶30

¶31

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶32

WRIT PETITION No.7922 OF 2020

¶33

Date : 01.08.2023 BSK

Smt. D. Obulamma, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. D. Obulamma, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sangeetha chinna Satyanarayana Vs Sri Vasista Lakshminarasimha Swamy Devasthanam

Pathan Yusuf Khan Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Mettu Naga Purushotham Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

S T v Sampath Kumar at T Sampath Kumar, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep by its Principal Secretary

Siddabathula Ksheera Sagara Sayana, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Siddabathula Asha Rani, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh