Petitioners challenged mutation of land records in favour of purchasers from Inamdars and issuance of pattadar passbooks on public holidays. The Court held petitioners failed to plead or prove their right, title or possession, lacked locus standi, and declined to annul the entries despite finding procedural irregularity.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI
WRIT PETITION Nos.5523 and 6229 of 2022
WRIT PETITION No.5523 of 2022
Dungala Yerra Patrudu, S/o Konda (Late), aged about 66 years old, Occ: Agriculture, R/o 2-133, J.P. Agraharam Village, Rolugunta Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, Andhra Pradesh and 111 others.
… Petitioners
Versus
P. Krishna Murthy, S/o not known, Former Tahsildar, Rolugunta Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, Andhra Pradesh, (Now currently working as Tahsildar, Pusapatirega Mandal, Vizianagaram District) and 14 others.
… Respondents.
Counsel for the petitioners : Sri S.R. Sanku Counsel for respondents : Sri G.L. Nageswar Rao; GP for Revenue and Sri O. Manohar Reddy Senior Counsel appearing for Sri C.Subodh
WRIT PETITION No.6229 of 2022
Dungala Srinu, S/o Appala Naidu (Late) aged about 38 years Old, Occ: Agriculture, R/o J.P. Agraharam Village, Rolugunta Mandal, Visakahaptnam District, Andhra Pradesh and 24 others.
… Petitioners
Versus
P. Krishna Murthy, S/o not known, Former Tahsildar, Rolugunta Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, Andhra Pradesh, (Now currently working as Tahsildar, Pusapatirega Mandal, Vizianagaram District) and 14 others.
… Respondents.
DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED : 16.04.2024
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
_____________________ SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J
*** HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI**
+ WRIT PETITION Nos.5523 and 6229 of 2022
% 16.04.2024
WRIT PETITION Nos.5523 and 6229 of 2022
Between:
Dungala Yerra Patrudu, S/o Konda (Late), aged about 66 years old, Occ: Agriculture, R/o 2-133, J.P. Agraharam Village, Rolugunta Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, Andhra Pradesh and 111 others.
… Petitioners
Versus
P. Krishna Murthy, S/o not known, Former Tahsildar, Rolugunta Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, Andhra Pradesh, (Now currently working as Tahsildar, Pusapatirega Mandal, Vizianagaram District) and 14 others.
… Respondents.
! Counsel for the petitioners : Sri S.R. Sanku
^ Counsel for respondents : Sri G.L. Nageswar Rao; GP for Revenue and Sri O. Manohar Reddy Senior Counsel appearing for Sri C.Subodh
WRIT PETITION No.6229 of 2022
Dungala Srinu, S/o Appala Naidu (Late) aged about 38 years Old, Occ: Agriculture, R/o J.P. Agraharam Village, Rolugunta Mandal, Visakahaptnam District, Andhra Pradesh and 24 others.
… Petitioners
Versus
P. Krishna Murthy, S/o not known, Former Tahsildar, Rolugunta Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, Andhra Pradesh, (Now currently
working as Tahsildar, Pusapatirega Mandal, Vizianagaram District) and 14 others.
… Respondents.
> Head Note:
? Cases referred:
This Court made the following:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
WRIT PETITION Nos.5523 and 6229 of 2022
WRIT PETITION No.5523 of 2022
Dungala Yerra Patrudu, S/o Konda (Late), aged about 66 years old, Occ: Agriculture, R/o 2-133, J.P. Agraharam Village, Rolugunta Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, Andhra Pradesh and 111 others.
… Petitioners
Versus
P. Krishna Murthy, S/o not known, Former Tahsildar, Rolugunta Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, Andhra Pradesh, (Now currently working as Tahsildar, Pusapatirega Mandal, Vizianagaram District) and 14 others.
… Respondents.
Counsel for the petitioners : Sri S.R. Sanku Counsel for respondents : Sri G.L. Nageswar Rao; GP for Revenue and Sri O. Manohar Reddy Senior Counsel appearing for Sri C.Subodh
WRIT PETITION No.6229 of 2022
Dungala Srinu, S/o Appala Naidu (Late) aged about 38 years Old, Occ: Agriculture, R/o J.P. Agraharam Village, Rolugunta Mandal, Visakahaptnam District, Andhra Pradesh and 24 others.
… Petitioners
Versus
P. Krishna Murthy, S/o not known, Former Tahsildar, Rolugunta Mandal, Visakhapatnam
District, Andhra Pradesh, (Now currently working as Tahsildar, Pusapatirega Mandal, Vizianagaram District) and 14 others.
… Respondents.
Counsel for the petitioners : Sri B. Appa Rao Counsel for respondents : Sri G.L. Nageswar Rao; GP for Revenue and Sri O. Manohar Reddy Senior Counsel appearing for Sri C.Subodh
:: COMMON ORDER ::
Since the issue involved in both the petitions is one and
the same, they are disposed of by this common order.
In the affidavit it was contended, inter alia , that petitioners
and their legal heirs are permanent residents and farmers of
Janakirampuram Agraharam, Rolugnta Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioners are small farmers and have been in possession and enjoyment of bits of agricultural lands. Petitioners’ ancestors acquired the land around 400 years ago. The lands have been used to nurture paddy, sugarcane, cashew, mango, coconut etc. The total extent of land is 462.80 cents. When some portion of land in survey Nos.73/25, 72 and 68 was acquired for house sites, compensation was provided to the landowners. Most of the petitioners were provided 10(1) adangal by the Tahsildar, Rolugunta.
b) The Settlement Officer, Visakhapatnam, long ago, vide its order, dated 14.10.1950 in S.R.No.35/50, Narsipatnam, declared that village called as Janakirampuram Agraharam, also known as Ramachandrapuram Agraharam is not an Inam land and hence, neither unofficial respondents and their forefathers nor nunna families were ever Inamdars of Janakirampuram Agraharam. Unofficial respondents obtained orders without impleading the petitioners, who are in possession and enjoyment of the lands, as parties and hence, said orders do not bind the petitioners. Respondent No.3-RDO, in proceedings, dated 24.12.2021, referred to the
order dated 21.06.1979 passed in I.A.No.1 of 1979, by the Sub Collector, Narsipatnam, as if lands were allotted to unofficial respondents. In fact, respondent No.3 stated that original order in I.A.No.1 of 1979 is not found in his records. The said order is a result of collusive transaction between one Nunna Krishnaiah and Rongali Jaggu Naidu. Petitioners were neither arrayed as parties nor heard in I.A.No.1 of 1979. The then Tahsildar, who is respondent No.1 herein, despite issuance of transfer and relieving orders, issued pattadar passbooks to unofficial respondent Nos.7 to 14 on public holidays i.e. on 14.08.2021 and 15.08.2021. No enquiry was conducted under Rule 26(6) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in
Land and Pattadar Passbook Act, 1989 (for short ‘the Act’ ). Neither Nunna families and Vegesina families nor anybody have saleable or vested rights to alienate the lands to sell the lands in favour of unofficial respondent Nos.7 to 14. Unofficial respondents/their forefathers are running the surreptitious litigation by claiming 1/3rd of the alleged inaam land i.e. Ac.124.8675 cents. Petitioners issued legal notice dated 25.01.2022 and submitted detailed representation dated 28.01.2022 to the official respondents. However, no action has been taken. Hence, the writ petitions.
defined under Section 2(7) of the Madras Estate (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act XVI of 1948.
b) After introduction of A.P. Inam (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956, (for short the ‘Inam Act, 1956’ ), Tahsildar, Narsipatnam conducted suo-moto enquiry and by order dated 16.12.1968 in Rc.No.3877/67, held that Janakirampuram Agraharam Village is an Inam Village and the schedule lands are Inam lands; that the schedule lands are situated in an Inam village; and the schedule lands are not held by any institution. Aggrieved by the said order, one Rongali Jaggamnaidu and another, filed appeal before the Court of the Special Deputy Tahsildar, (Inam), Narsipatnam (hereinafter referred to as ‘SDT’ ). The SDT enquired and concluded that the lands covered by T.D.No.47 are Inam lands and they were originally held by Kunnumuri people, who sold an extent of Ac.400-00 cents to Nunna Venkata Subbarao and Nunna Venkateswarlu as per order dated 30.12.1976 in Sr.No.2/76 SDT (1). Thereafter, the successor SDT, Narsipatnam concluded the enquiry and by order dated 15.08.1978 held that Kanumuri Krishnamacharulu and his five family members; 2) Nuna Sri Hari and his 19 family members being Inamdars are entitled to ryotwari pattas for 1/3rd share and Rongali Tatayya,
Rongali Rama Murthy, 3) Pydamma, 4) Dungali Veeranna, 5) Surla Rama Swami and 6) Chitikala Kannayya and their successors, being tenants are entitled for 2/3rd share .
c) Aggrieved by the order dated 15.08.1978, Nunna Krishnayya and 22 others filed appeal before the SubCollector, Narsipatnam against Rongali Jaggunaidu and 18 others. The Sub-Collector, Narsipatnam passed orders dated 28.06.1979 in I.A.No.1 of 1979 holding that subdivisions should be made for 1/3rd of the whole extent of Ac. 412-86 cents to the Inamdars in one section and the rest to the tenants, which will facilitate cultivation of the entire land by either party. As per the orders of the Sub-Collector, Narsipatnam, the then Mandal Revenue Officer, Rolugunta prepared ryotwari pattas, but the tenants did not take the pattas. The tenants claimed pattas for the entire extent and that the case is pending since long time. It was published in District Gazette under item No.48/77 Ecsiv-1993.
d) Subsequently, the Tahsildar, Rolugunta vide proceedings in Rc.No.3098/2012 SDT dated 02.07.2013, issued pattadar passbooks for an extent of Ac.133.26 cents i.e 1/3rd share to the Inamdars, in the year 2014. Later Inamdars filed W.P.No.2530 of 2015 against the Revenue
Divisional Officer for non issuance of title deeds and the same
was disposed of by order dated 09.02.2015 directing the respondents therein to comply with the provisions of the Act. In response to the order, dated 09.02.2015 the Revenue Divisional Officer issued endorsement dated 16.03.2015 vide Rc.No.11/2014/B, rejecting the claim of the petitioners on the ground that petitioners are not in actual possession of lands. Therefore, petitioners filed C.C.No.2209 of 2015 and the same was closed. Thereafter Inamdars filed another writ petition vide W.P.No.3250 of 2017 to direct the Tahsildar, Rolugunta for digital signature of entries in respect of the subject lands in the webland and adangal. The Joint Collector, Visakhapatnam vide proceedings in Rc.No.3599/2014 F3 dated 14.12.2017 issued orders to comply with the directions of the High Court. After getting pattadar passbooks Nunna and Kanumuri families sold away their lands to the unofficial respondent Nos.7 to 15 under registered documents. After purchase of the land, respondent No.8 filed W.P.No.8096 of 2019 against the revenue authority i.e. Tahsildar, Rolugunta for non-issuance of pattadar passbooks and to suspend the certificate/order, dated 19.02.2018 passed in Rc.No.52/2017/A and the same is pending. As the matter stood thus, the then Tahsildar, P.
Krishnamurthy issued pattadar passbooks and made entries
in favour of respondent Nos.7 to 15, as they promised to withdraw W.P.No.8096 of 2019. The grounds raised by the petitioners regarding possession, cultivation of land, etc. are not correct. Inam Estate Village is different from Inam Village. In the Inam Estate village, lands shall be settled under the provisions/rules of the Estate Abolition Act, 1948, whereas the Inam village lands shall be settled under the provisions of the Inam Act, 1956. All the villages were surveyed, and lands were settled during 1926 in British regime and a register namely diglot was prepared. The petitioners, if aggrieved regarding issuance of pattadar passbooks ought to have preferred appeal under Section 5B of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Lands and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act’). Eventually, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
lands in webland. The then Joint Collector, Visakhapatnam, issued proceedings in Rc.No.3599/2014/F3 dated 14.12.2017 to comply directions of the High Court. The Tahsildar, Rolugunta had taken action accordingly.
b) Rongala Ramana (one of the petitioners) and another filed revision petition No.40/2017 under Section 9(2) of the ROR Act against Nunna Pedda Subba Rao and seven others before the then Joint Collector, Visakhapatnam and the same is pending. Some of the tenants also obtained PPBs from the present Tahsildar, Rolugunta, according to their possession.
c) The purchaser of subject land i.e. respondent No.8 filed W.P.No.8096 of 2019 for issuance of pattadar passbook and to suspend the proceedings dated 19.02.2018.
d) As per the orders of the District Collector, Visakhapatnam, the then RDO, Narsipatnam conducted enquiry on the actions of the then Tahsildar in issuing pattadar passbooks and title deeds in favour of unofficial respondents on 14.08.2021 and 15.08.2021, being public holidays and submitted findings vide Rc.No.956/2021/JA dated 04.12.2021. As per the findings of the report, the then Tahsildar i.e. respondent No.1 herein was transferred on
14.08.2021 and the said authority without conducting full-
fledged enquiry, without appreciating the office records and without examining the current possession and enjoyers of the land issued pattadar passbooks on 14.08.2021 and 15.08.2021. Therefore, necessary proposals vide e-office File No. REV02 - EST0DC / 18 / 2022 – DT – SEC (A) - ANKP dated 02.12.2022 were submitted to the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration recommending initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the then Tahsildar, Rolugunta.
e) Petitioners failed to produce documents to prove that property belongs to their ancestors. Inamdars and tenants were entitled to receive ryotwari pattas. Petitioners have not availed the opportunity of appeal under Section 5(2) read with Rule 21(2) before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Narsipatnam. Eventually prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
from the unofficial respondents on 20.07.2021 through Meeseva. After scrutiny, form No.VIII was published on 30.07.2021 with notified date as 14.08.2021. Eventually, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
title deeds were not issued. Hence, Inamdars filed W.P.No.2530 of 2015 and the same was disposed of by order dated 09.02.2015. Thereafter, revenue officials have issued endorsement dated 16.03.2016 rejecting the request of the Inamdars. Hence, contempt case was filed. However, the same was closed in view of the averments of counter affidavit, wherein it was stated that title deeds cannot be granted in view of the Government decision. Subsequently, the unofficial respondents purchased the property under registered sale deeds. Most of the tenants in whose favour ryotwari pattas were granted, were also given pattadar passbooks and title deeds. The order of the authority allotting 1/3rd share to the Inamdars and 2/3rd share to the tenants had become final. Petitioners are not aggrieved persons, and they have no locus standi to file the above writ petitions. Eventually, prayed to dismiss the writ petitions.
Government pleader for Revenue would contend that writ petition is not maintainable. They would contend that in fact, the petitioners got an effective alternative remedy of appeal. Learned senior counsel would contend that the Record of Rights were already updated and names of Inamdars were mutated in revenue records. After alienation, names of purchasers were mutated by updating record of rights. However, the said proceedings qua Inamdars were not challenged by the petitioners and hence the petitioners do not have locus standi to file writ petition. He would also contend that the petitioners are not aggrieved parties.
(a) Whether the petitioners are aggrieved parties and got locus standi to challenge the proceedings i.e. updation of RoR in favour of unofficial respondents?
(b) Whether the then Tahsildar, Rolugunta followed the procedure prescribed under the Act and Rules while mutating the names of purchasers from Inamdars?
13. In Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vs State of
Maharastra1 , the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as follows:
Person aggrieved
9. It is a settled legal proposition that a stranger cannot be permitted to meddle in any proceeding, unless he satisfies the authority/court, that he falls within the category of aggrieved persons. Only a person who has suffered, or suffers from legal injury can challenge the act/action/order, etc. in a court of law. A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable either for the purpose of enforcing a statutory or legal right, or when there is a complaint by the appellant that there has been a breach of statutory duty on the part of the authorities. Therefore, there must be a judicially enforceable right available for enforcement, on the basis of which writ jurisdiction is resorted to. The Court can, of course, enforce the performance of a statutory duty by a public body, using its writ jurisdiction at the behest of a
1 AIR 2013 SC 58
person, provided that such person satisfies the Court that he has a legal right to insist on such performance. The existence of such right is a condition precedent for invoking the writ jurisdiction of the courts. It is implicit in the exercise of such extraordinary jurisdiction that the relief prayed for must be one to enforce a legal right . In fact, the existence of such right, is the foundation of the exercise of the said jurisdiction by the Court . The legal right that can be enforced must ordinarily be the right of the appellant himself, who complains of infraction of such right and approaches the Court for relief as regards the same. [Vide State of Orissa v. Madan Gopal Rungta [1951 SCC 1024 : AIR 1952 SC 12], Saghir Ahmad v. State of U.P. [AIR 1954 SC 728] , Calcutta Gas Co. (Proprietary) Ltd. v. State of W.B. [AIR 1962 SC 1044], Rajendra Singh v. State of M.P. [(1996) 5 SCC 460 : AIR 1996 SC 2736] and Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Shareholders Welfare Assn. (2) v. S.C. Sekar [(2009) 2 SCC 784] .]”
10. A “legal right”, means an entitlement arising out of legal rules. Thus, it may be defined as an advantage, or a benefit conferred upon a person by the rule of law. The expression, “person aggrieved” does not include a person who suffers from a psychological or an imaginary injury; a person aggrieved must, therefore, necessarily be one whose right or interest has been adversely affected or jeopardised. (Vide Shanti Kumar R. Canji v. Home Insurance Co. of New York [(1974) 2 SCC 387 : AIR 1974 SC 1719] and State of Rajasthan v. Union of India [(1977) 3 SCC 592 : AIR 1977 SC 1361] .)
11. In Anand Sharadchandra Oka v. University of Mumbai [(2008) 5 SCC 217 : AIR 2008 SC 1289] , a similar view was taken by this Court, observing that, if a person claiming relief is not eligible as per requirement, then he cannot be said to be a person aggrieved regarding the election or the selection of other persons.
12. In A. Subash Babu v. State of A.P. [(2011) 7 SCC 616 : (2011) 3 SCC (Civ) 851 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 267 : AIR 2011 SC 3031] , this Court held : (SCC pp. 628-29, para 25)
“ 25. … The expression ‘aggrieved person’ denotes an elastic and an elusive concept. It cannot be confined within the bounds of a rigid, exact and comprehensive definition. Its scope and meaning depends on diverse, variable factors such as the content and intent of the statute of which the contravention is alleged, the specific circumstances of the case, the nature and extent of the complainant's interest and the nature and the extent of the prejudice or injury suffered by the complainant.”
hence the same do not bind the petitioners. The further contention of the learned counsels is that the petitioners have been in possession and enjoyment of the lands. The legal notice issued may be treated as part of the pleading.
others2 observed as follows:
2 AIR 1988 SC 2181
raising the point, if he is the writ petitioner, must plead and prove such facts by evidence which must appear from the writ petition and if he is the respondent, from the counter affidavit. If the facts are not pleaded or the evidence in support of such facts is not annexed to the writ petition or to the counter affidavit as the case may be, the Court will not entertain the point. There is a distinction between a pleading under the Civil procedure code and a writ petition of a counter affidavit. While in a pleading, that a point or a written statement, the facts and no evidence are required to be pleaded, in a writ petition or in the counter affidavit not only the facts but also the evidence in proof of such facts have to be pleaded and annexed to it.
19. In Narmada Bachao Andolan Vs State of M.P. and
another3 the Hon’ble Apex Court observed importance of pleadings as follows:
3 AIR 2011 SC 1989
granted”. Therefore, a decision of a case cannot be based on grounds outside the pleadings of parties.
The object and purpose of pleadings and issues is to ensure that the litigants come to trial with all issues clearly defined and to prevent cases being expanded or grounds being shifted during trial. If any factual or legal issues, despite having merit, has not been raised by the parties, the court should not decide the same as the opposite counsel does not have a fair opportunity to answer the line of reasoning adopted in that regard. Such a judgment may be violative of principles of natural justice”.
hence the writ petition. However, the affidavit is not clear on this aspect.
persons, and hence they got locus to file the writ petition. Accordingly, this point is answered.
petition. If the petitioners are aggrieved of any such order,
they have to invoke jurisdiction of appropriate forum.
Authority of India Ltd. v. National Union Water Front
Workers4 held that,
“123. We have used the expression industrial adjudicator by design as determination of the questions aforementioned requires inquiry into disputed questions of facts which cannot conveniently be made by High Courts in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Therefore, in such cases the appropriate authority to go into those issues will be industrial tribunal/court whose determination will be amenable to judicial review.”
POINT No.2
4 (2001) 7 SCC 1
issued pattadar passbooks on 14.08.2021 and 15.08.2021, being holidays.
shall determine as to whether, record of rights to be updated or not. If the amendment, in consequence of the acquisition is liable to be refused, the Tahsildar shall transmit all the documents to the RDO with recommendations as per Section 5(2) of the Act and the RDO, under Section 5(2a) shall pass order either confirming or disagreeing with the recommendations of the Tahsildar. If the RDO disagrees with the recommendations of Tahsildar, Tahsildar shall carry out the amendment of ROR as provided under Section 5(1). In cases of acquisition of right by a registered document, ROR shall stand amended to reflect the said transaction, as stated under Section 5(3) of the act. Any person aggrieved by order under sub sections (1), 2(a) and the amendment of ROR under sub-section (3) may prefer an appeal before District Revenue Officer within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of such order or amendment of ROR under Subsection 4. As per Section 5(6) of the Act, the District Collector, suo motu or otherwise, is competent to initiate proceedings under criminal law in case any application for amendment of ROR is made fraudulently. The scheme referred to supra is as per amendment to Section 5 by virtue of Act 15 of 2022.
interests in land. Rule 3 denotes that ROR shall be initially prepared in form No.I and subsequently maintained in form – I-B for every separate revenue village.
Form I-B, the draft shall be suitably modified in the electronically maintained record of rights as per Rule 18(3)(e).
Nos. 48 to 53, 69, 70, 83 to 85 and 87 to 93 Janakipuram @
Ramachandrapuram Agraharam. Seems, as per the proceedings of Revenue Divisional Officer, Narsipatnam, the Tahsildar Rolugunta issued Pattadar Pass Books to different Inamdhars in the year 2014 in respect of Ac.133-26 cts. In fact, RoR was also updated in favour of different Inamdars and basing upon the RoR, Pattadar Pass Books were issued. When title deeds were not issued, Inamdars filed W.P.No.2530 of 2015. Interim order was granted in W.P.M.P.No. 3380 of 2015 on 09.02.2015. Since the interim order was not complied with C.C.No. 2209 of 2005 was filed.
Tahsildars not to entertain any claim for issuance of Title Deeds. Writ petitioners can utilize the pass books for enforcing their legitimate rights. Nunna Venkata Subramanyeswara Rao and 7 others, who are Inamdars, made claim for grant of Pattadar Pass Books on 30.12.2014. In fact, as seen, Pattadar Pass Books was granted. Xerox copies of pass books issued to Inamdars or legal heirs are filed along with the counter affidavit of respondent No.8. Form-I B dated 14.12.2017 in the name of Nunna Srinivas is also filed along with counter affidavit.
the name of unofficial respondents were updated in Record of Rights, they are entitled PPB and TD.
dated 04.12.2021 of RDO, no further action is initiated against respondent No.1, till date.
the writ petition and these writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, these writ petitions are dismissed. No costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
Date: 16.04.2024 Note : LR copy to be marked B/o ikn
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
WRIT PETITION Nos.5523 and 6229 of 2022
Date : 02.04.2024 ikn
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioners were aggrieved persons with locus standi to challenge mutation of record of rights in favour of purchasers from Inamdars?
Whether the Tahsildar followed the prescribed procedure under the ROR Act and Rules while mutating names and issuing pattadar passbooks?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vs State of MaharashtraRelied on¶13
AIR 2013 SC 58 · Who else cites this
Bharat Singh and others Vs State of Haryana and othersRelied on¶18
AIR 1988 SC 2181 · Who else cites this
Narmada Bachao Andolan Vs State of M.P. and anotherRelied on¶19
AIR 2011 SC 1989 · Who else cites this
Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. National Union Water Front WorkersRelied on¶26
(2001) 7 SCC 1 · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Dungala Yerra Patrudu and others
Dungala Srinu and others
P. Krishna Murthy
District Collector, Visakhapatnam (Respondent No.4)
Respondents Nos.7 to 15 (purchasers from Inamdars)
Subba Reddy Satti
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
