Smt Perikala Indravenamma, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Bathula Siddhardhdev, S/o Late B. Seshaiah, aged 55 years R/o BlockL Flat No.504, Aparna Sarovar Zenith, Kanchi Gachibowli^Road, Near Citizen Hospital, Nallagandia Serilingampalli, Hyderabad-500049,

¶24

(R6 is brought on record as LR of the deceased 5 Respondent^as per Courts Order dated 21/12/2024 In IA.No.1 of 2020.)

¶25

...Respondents

¶26

lA NO: 2 OF 2025

¶27

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings including dispossession of the^petitioner/ appellant from the above said land to an extent of^{Ac.6.24centsofland} in Sy.No.274, Etheru Revenue Village, Bapatia pending disposal of the Writ Appeal.

¶28

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI MAMIDI PRAKASH KUMAR

¶29

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: GP FOR REVENUE

¶30

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.5 & 6:SRI SITA RAM CHAPARLA

¶31

The Court made the following: JUDGMENT

¶32

HRRR, J & HTCDS,J \NA 784 2025

¶33

It I

¶34

1

¶35

APHC010254242025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA

¶36

PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶37

[3529]

¶38

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶39

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶40

PRESENT

¶41

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶42

i

¶43

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR

¶44

WRIT APPEAL NO: 784/2025

¶45

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent be^pleased to allow the Writ Appeal by setting-aside the Order dated 28.02.2025 passed in WP.No.21817 of 2020 and to pass

¶46

Between:

¶47

1.SMT PERIKALA INDRAVENAMMA,. W/0 LATE SUBBA RAO, AGE 73 YEARS, R/0 DOOR N0.57215/1/1, PANDARIPURAM, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶48

...APPELLANT

¶49

AND

¶50

1.STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS* PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT VEIAGAPUDI AMARAVATHl GUNTUR DISTRICT

¶51

2.THE JOINT COLLECTOR CUM ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, GUNTUR GUNTUR DISTRICT

¶52

3.THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, TENALI REVENUE DIVISION TENAH GUNTUR DISTRICT

¶53

4.THE TAHSILDAR, BAPATIA MAND^L BAPATIA GUNTUR

¶54

HRRR, ty & HTCDS,. WA_784_202-^

¶55

2

¶56

DISTRICT

¶57

5.SMT KATRAGADDA SAKKUBAYAMMA, W/0 K VENKATA SUBBA RAO AGE 83 YEARS, RJO OPP TO OFFICERS CLUB ROAD OLD BUS STAND, BAPATIA, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶58

6.BATHUIA SIDDHARDHDEV, S/0 LATE B SESHAIAH, AGED 55 YEARS R/0 BLOCKL FLAT NO.504, APARNA SAROVAR ZENITH, KANCHI GACHIBO’WLI ROAD. NEAR CITIZEN HOSPITAL, NALLAGANDLA SERIIINGAMPALLI HYDERABAD-500049, R6 IS BROUGHT ON RECORD AS LR OF THE DECEASED 5TH RESPONDENT AS PER COURTS ORDER DATED 21/12/2024 IN lA.NO.L OF 2020.

¶59

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶60

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶61

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 condone the delay of 19 days in filing Writ Appeal against the Judgment of the Learned Single Judge dated 28.02.2025 in WP.No.21817 of 2020 and pass

¶62

lA NO: 2 OF 2025

¶63

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 stay of ail further proceedings including dispossession of the petitioner/ appellant from the above said land to an extent of Ac.6.24 cents of land in Sy.No.274, Etheru Revenue Village, Bapatia pending disposal of the Writ Appeal and pass

¶64

Counsel for the Appellant:

¶65

1.MAMIDI PRAKASH KUMAR

¶66

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶67

HRRR, J & HTCDS.J VJA 784 2025

r47

3

1.GP FOR REVENUE

2.SITARAM CHAPARLA

The Court made the following:

¶73

HRRR, J & HTCDS.J WA 784 2025

¶74

1

¶75

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAO RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶76

AND

¶77

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR

¶78

WA No.784 OF 2025.

¶79

JUDGMENT:- (PerHon’ble Sri Justice T.C.D. Sekhar)

¶80

The present writ appeal is filed aggrieved by order dated 28.02.2025 passed in WP No.21817 of 2020. The^appellant is the petitioner in the said writ petition. She claims that the husband of the 5'^ respondent along with his son executed agreement of sale dated 30.04.1977 vide document No.555 of • 1977 in respect of land admeasuring an extent of^{Ac.6.24centsin} Sy.No.274 of Etheru Revenue Village, Bapatla Mandal^andDistrict for total sale consideration of Rs.56,000/-.

¶81

It is further stated that the appellant paid an amount^of Rs.3,000/- towards part-payment and possession was^deliveredto her. It is agreed that the appellant has to discharge^the loans mentioned in the said agreement of sale. It is further^{statedthatthe} I appellant got mutated her name in revenue records as the possession was delivered to her by virtue of the said^agreementof sale and the unofficial respondents did not object^tothesame.

¶82

HRRR, J & HTCDS.J WA_784_2025

¶83

2

¶84

Be that as it may, the 5^*^ respondent filed suit in OS No.118 of 2015, on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Bapatia against the appellant seeking declaration of title and to grant permanent injunction in respect of the subject land. Incidentally, a representation dated 04.05.2015 was filed to cancel the pattadar pass books and title deeds in respect of subject lands^beforethe 3'^'^ respondent. In turn, the same was entertained and by order dated 18.01.2019, the 3'^ respondent cancelled pattadar pass books issued in favour of the appellant. As against the said order, a revision was filed before the 2"^^ respondent whereunder the order of the 3'^ respondent was confirmed by order dated 03.10.2020. Questioning the same, the appellant filed writ petition vide W.P.No.21817 of 2020 and the same was dismissed by order dated 28.02.2025, which is impugned in the present writ appeal.

¶85

Heard counsel for the appellant, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and counsel for the Respondent No.6.

¶86

It is the case of the appellant that her name was 1 mutated in revenue records based on agreement of sale^dated 30.04.1977 said to have been executed by the husband^of 5*^ respondent along with his son. Admittedly no sale deed^isexecuted

¶87

HRRR, J & HTCDS.J WA 784_2025

¶88

3

¶89

in her favour till today. Furthermore, the 5**^ respondent^filedsuitfor declaration in OS No.118 of 2015, on the file of Senior^CivilJudge, Bapatia and the same is pending, adjudication. As seen^fromthe order of the learned Single Judge, the writ petition^wasdismissed on the ground that as per Section 4 of Act 26 of 1971,^whoever acquired right by succession, inheritance, partition,^{pattaordecree} of a Court or otherwise any right as owner, pattadar,^mortgageeis entitled to mutate his name in revenue records. While^referringto the said provision, the learned Single Judge observed that the

¶90

agreement of sale does not fall within the documents^mentioned under the said provision and further observed that the^ appellant by playing fraud got mutated her name in revenue records.

¶91

Be that as it may, it is settled proposition of law^that appeal under Section 5(5) of the said Act is not maintainable as against the cancellation of the pattadar pass books^asheldbythis Court in "Ratnamma Vs. The Revenue Divisional Officer & u, others, Dharmavaram

¶92

On considerations of submissions made by both counsel, as rightly contended by the counsel for the^appellant,a * Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Judicature at

¶93

'2015 (6) ALD 609 (DB)

¶94

HRRR, J & HTCDS.J WA_784 2025

¶95

4

¶96

Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh, in Ratnamma Vs. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Anantapur District and two (02) others, after a review of the provisions of RoR Act had held that there is no appeal provided against the issuance of pattadar pass book and title^deed. In the present case a representation dated 04.05.2015 was^{filedtocancel} the pattadar pass books and title deeds in respect of subject lands before the 3'^ respondent and in view of the Judgment^ofDivision Bench in Ratnamma’s case, such appeal is not maintainable.

¶97

It is not in dispute that in the case on hand, the representation made by the 5 respondent was entertained by the 3'^'^ respondent and treated the same as appeal under Section 5(5), cancelled the pattadar pass books issued in favour of the appellant. As already noted supra, the order of the 3^^^ respondent was confirmed by the 2"^^ respondent.

¶98

Though the contention of the 5**^ respondent that agreement of sale dated 30.04.1977 does not confer^titleonthe appellant, as held by this Court in the abov? referred judgment appeal under Section 5(5) of Act 26 of 1971 is not^{maintainablefor} cancellation of pattadar pass books. In such circumstances, the order passed by the 3'^ respondent is one without jurisdiction^and

¶99

HRRR, J & HTCDS.J WA_784_2d25

¶100

5

¶101

is liable to be set aside. As the or.der of the 3 therefore the same is revision dated 03.10.2020 passed respondent is set aside, order in by the 2"^ respondent is also set aside

¶102

of hearing, the learned counsel for 10. During the course would submit that if the instant appeal is the respondent No.6 would amount to revivirig illegal mutation made allowed, the same in favour of the appellant, despite the fact that the agreement of sale will not confer title. Though we find force in^{thesubmissionof} involved in the present the counsel for the 6'^ respondent, the issue writ appeal is no more res Integra in view of the law laid down by Vs. The Revenue Divisional this Court in the case of Ratnamma Further, when a particular Officer & others, Dharmavaram. contemplated under law, the same has to be adhere procedure is clear that the respondent to. On perusal of the record, it is preferred appeal questioning the issuance,of pattadar^passbooks in favour of the appellant, though despite the fact that the same IS stretch of imagination it can be not maintainable. Therefore, by no said that this Court is reviving the illegal mutation in favour of the procedure adopted by the 5* respondent appellant rather the no such appeal can be cannot be permitted under law as that the 6'^ respondent is at entertained. It is needless to mention

¶103

HRRR, J & HTCDS,j WA_784_2025

¶104

6

¶105

liberty to question the mutation and as well as the issuance of pattadar pass books in favour of the appellant as provided^under law.

¶106

For the foregoing reasons, the order of the learned Single Judge is hereby set aside, so also orders passed by the respondent Nos.2 & 3. Further, the 6‘^ respondent is at liberty to question the issuance of pattadar pass books in favour of the appellant by invoking appropriate steps in accordance with law.

¶107