D Lakshmi Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

E SARASVATHI MPTC, W/o. LINGAMURTHY, AG E NOT KNOWN, OCC: NOT KNOWN, R/o. TIPPEPALLI V I LLAGE, NUTIMADUGU P A NCHAYAT, KOMMADURU MANDA L , SRI SATYASAI DISTRI C T.

¶19

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶20

2

¶21

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 to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondent No.3 in removing the Revenue records by entering the name of the respondent no.6 in respect of the land admeasuring Ac. 5.12 cents in Sy.No.227-5 situated in Nutimadugu Village, Kambaduru Mandal, Sri Satyasai District without following the due process of law and without issuing notices to the petitioner as Arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to section 5(3) read with Rule 19 and 5(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971, and consequently direct the respondent no.3 to enter the name of the petitioner in revenue records for the extent of Ac. 5.12 cents in Sy.No.227-5 situated in Nutimadugu Village, Kambaduru Mandal, Sri Satyasai District as Pattadar and Possessor by deleting the name of the respondent No.6 and to pass such other order or orders.

¶22

IA No. 1 OF 2024

¶23

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 to permit the Petitioner to amend the prayer portion in the affidavit and petition in W.P.No. 16225 of 2023 by inserting the words “ Ananthapuram District ” in place of “ Sri Satyasai District” in the interest of Justice.

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶25

1.SAZID KALLUR

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶27

1.GP FOR REVENUE

¶28

2.PETA GNANA TEJA

¶29

The Court made the following:

¶30

3

¶31

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

¶32

WRIT PETITION No.16225 of 2023

¶33

ORDER:

¶34

The admitted fact is that an extent of admeasuring Ac.5-12 cents situated in Nutimadugu village, Kambaduru Mandal, was assigned in favour of the father-in-law of the Writ Petitioner and father-in-law of the 6^th unofficial respondent. The DKT patta was issued in the year 1955.

¶35

It is the case of the petitioner herein that since decades together, the petitioner is enjoying the property and her name was mutated in the revenue records. But, however, the 6^th unofficial respondent with an intention to grab the land of the petitioner, in the absence of the petitioner in the village, has done conspiracy along with the respondent Nos.3 and 5 and got illegally mutated in the name of the 6^th unofficial respondent in the online revenue records and the petitioner is the owner of the property and even assuming that the 6^th unofficial respondent is having any right, the official respondents have not given any notice before mutating the name of the 6^th unofficial respondent. Hence, the mutation in the revenue records is contrary to the judgment of the Full Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, in the case of Chinnam Pandurangam v. Mandal Revenue Officer, Serilingampally¹ and under Rule 19 of the A.P. Rights in Land and

¶36

1 AIR 2008 AP 15

¶37

4

¶38

Patta Pass Books Rules, 1989, as stipulated under the above rule, a notice has to be issued to the affected parties and without issuing any notice, in pressure, the 3^rd respondent mutated the name of the unofficial respondent herein. Hence, the present Writ Petition is filed to direct the official respondents to remove the name of the unofficial respondent in the revenue records and consequently to direct to mutate the name of the petitioner herein.

¶39

The 6^th respondent herein filed counter affidavit stating that the writ petitioner and 6^th respondent are co-sisters and the property belongs to the father-in-law of both the petitioner and the 6^th unofficial respondent. The writ petitioner has executed an agreement of sale in favour of the 6^th unofficial respondent’s husband on 11.01.2018. Her husband in turn executed a gift deed in favour of the 6^th unofficial respondent. Thereafter, an application was made under A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Rules, 1989, to the revenue department specifically to the Tahsildar, Kammaduru Mandal, for mutation in revenue records, after following the due procedure as stipulated in A.P. Land in Pattadar Passbooks Rules, 1989, the 3^rd respondent mutated the name of the 6^th unofficial respondent. Hence, the counsel for the 6^th respondent would pray this Court to dismiss the Writ Petition.

¶40

Even assuming that the respondent authorities have mutated the

¶41

name of the unofficial respondent without issuing any notice,

¶42

5

¶43

admittedly, there is a title dispute in between the petitioner and the unofficial respondent herein.

¶44

The property belongs to the father-in-law of the petitioner as well as the 6^th unofficial respondent. On the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that there is a civil dispute in between the petitioner and the 6^th unofficial respondent. Both the petitioner and 6^th unofficial respondent are claiming property of their father-in-law. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that it is better to direct the official respondents more particularly the 3^rd respondent-Tahsildar, to place the subject property in the dispute register.

¶45

Therefore, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondent No.3 to place the subject property to an extent of Ac.5.12 cents in survey No.227-5, situated in Nutimadugu village, Kambaduru Mandal, in the dispute register. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶46

As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.

¶47

__________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

Date: 04.12.2025

Harin

6

64