Dismissed¶¶44

Kuncha Ramana Babu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC9 Dec 2025WP/3090/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Alternative remedy / non-maintainability of writ petition; alteration of revenue records and mutation entries; old Survey Nos. 228, 229, 230, 231, 236, 237 altered as New R.S. No.222, Ac.18.30 cents, Chodapalli Village, Achuthapuram Mandal, Anakapalli; Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 — Sections 3(3), 4, 5(2), 5(3), 5(4); appeal to Revenue Divisional Officer; legal notice dated 10.07.2023; writ dismissed with liberty to approach authorities; no costs; single-judge bench of Justice D Ramesh; decision dated 10.12.2025.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the concerned authorities to settle their grievances; no costs; miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. ¶¶44

Kuncha Ramana Babu Vs The State of Andhra… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the concerned authorities to settle their grievances; no costs; miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

¶¶44

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition challenging the alteration of revenue records is maintainable when the petitioner has not exhausted the remedies available under the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971.

¶¶43

Court's answer

A petitioner aggrieved by mutations done by the respondents has a remedy under Section 3(3) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 to file an application before the authorities, who may cause an enquiry and pass orders; orders passed are appealable under Section 5(4) to the Revenue Divisional Officer; a person who has acquired rights subsequently may apply under Section 4, with inquiry and orders under Sections 5(2) and 5(3) and appeal under Section 5(4).

¶¶40

Ratio / Principle

Without exhausting the statutory remedies under the Act, the writ petition is not maintainable.

¶¶43

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (Article 226) before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati (Justice D Ramesh), decided 10.12.2025. The petitioner challenged the action of the Tahsildar (2nd respondent) in altering the revenue records in old Sy.Nos.228, 229, 230, 231, 236 and 237 as new R.S.No.222, for Ac.18.30 cents at Chodapalli Village, Achuthapuram Mandal, Anakapalli District, after a legal notice dated 10.07.2023 to Respondents 2 to 5. The Court held that the petitioner had remedies under the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 — application under Section 3(3) against mutations, application under Section 4 for subsequently acquired rights, inquiry and orders under Sections 5(2) and 5(3), and appeal under Section 5(4) to the Revenue Divisional Officer — and that without exhausting these remedies the writ petition was not maintainable. The writ petition was dismissed with liberty to approach the concerned authorities, without costs, and pending miscellaneous petitions were closed.

¶1

APHC010053522024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

[3208]

¶5

WEDNESDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 3090/2024

¶9

Between:

¶10

KUNCHA RAMANA BABU, KUNCHA RAMANA BABU, S/O. (LATE) LACHANNA, HINDU, AGED 55 YEARS, CULTIVATION, R/O CHODAPALLI VILLAGE, ACHUTHAPURAM MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDING, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI.

¶14

THE TAHSILDAR, MANDAL REVENUE OFFICE, ACHUTHAPURAM, ANAKAPALLI, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. .

¶15

THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ANAKAPALLI, ANAKAPALLI, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT

¶16

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ANAKAPALLI, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT .

¶17

REDDDY APPALA NAIDU, S/O. PAIDIYYA, HINDU, AGED 45 YEARS, ACHUTHAPURAM VILLAGE, HAMLET OF DUPPITHURRU, ACHUTHAPURAM MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.

¶18

GORICHERLA SATHISH KUMAR, S/O, ANANDHA RAO, HINDU, AGED 28 YEARS, ETIKOPPAKA VILLAGE, YELAMANCHILI MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. .

¶19

-2-

¶20

W.P. No.3090 OF 2024

¶21

Date of order:10.12.2025

¶22

VADISALA NUKALAMMA, W/O.APPARAO, HINDU, AGED 46 YEARS, ACHUTHAPURAM VILLAGE AND MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI,VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.

¶23

VADISALA CHIRANJEEVI, S/O. APPARAO, HINDU, AGED 38 YEARS, ACHUTHAPURAM VILLAGE AND MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI,VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.

¶24

VADISALA NAGESH, S/O. APPARAO, HINDU, AGED 46 YEARS, ACHUTHAPURAM VILLAGE AND MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI,VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.

¶25

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶26

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 an appropriate writ or order or a direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents, particularly 2^nd Respondent in altering the Revenue records in Survey Nos. 228, 229, 230, 231, 236 and 237 as New R.S. No.222, for an extent of acres 18-30 cents situated at Chodapalli Village, Achuthapuram Mandal, Anakapalli District, which is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and also violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to consider the legal notice, dated 10-072023 got issued by the petitioner through his counsel to Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 and to pass

¶27

IA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶28

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 direct the respondents to consider the legal notice, dated 10-07-2023 got issued by the petitioner through his counsel to Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 for not to alter the Revenue records in Survey Nos. 228, 229, 230, 231, 236 and 237 as New R.S. No.222, for an extent of acres 18-30 situated at Chodapalli Village, Achuthapuram Mandal, Anakapalli District, immediately, and pass

¶29

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶30

NANI BABU ROBBA

¶31

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶32

GP FOR REVENUE

¶33

The Court made the following:

¶34

-3-

¶35

W.P. No.3090 OF 2024 Date of order:10.12.2025

¶36

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH

¶37

WRIT PETITION NO: 3090 OF 2024

¶38

ORDER:

¶39

Aggrieved by the action of respondents, more particularly, the 2^nd respondent, in altering the revenue records in old Sy.Nos.228, 229, 230, 231, 236 and 237 as new R.S.No.222, for an extent of Ac.18.30 cents situated at Chodapalli Village, Achuthapuram Mandal, Anakapalli District, the petitioner issued a legal notice dated 10.07.2023 through his Counsel to Respondents 2 to 5.

¶40

On verification of the grounds made in the writ petition and the legal notice, it appears that the petitioner has disputed the action of the official respondents. If the petitioner is aggrieved by any mutations done by the respondents, he has a remedy under Section 3(3) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 Act [for short, ‘ the Act ’] to file an application before the authorities. The authorities can cause an enquiry and pass orders. If any orders are passed under Section 3(3) of the Act, there is a remedy of appeal under Section 5(4) of the Act against the same to the Revenue Divisional Officer. There is also a remedy to file an application if he has acquired any rights subsequently, he is also entitled to file an application under Section 4 of the Act and the authorities are entitled to cause an inquiry and pass orders under Sections 5(2) and 5(3) of the Act. If any orders

¶41

-4-

¶42

W.P. No.3090 OF 2024 Date of order:10.12.2025

¶43

are passed, the petitioner has a remedy of appeal under Section 5(4) of the Act. Without exhausting such remedies, the writ petition is not maintainable.

¶44

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed, granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the concerned authorities to settle their grievances. No costs.

¶45

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.

¶46

__________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH

¶47

Kuncha Ramana Babu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kuncha Ramana Babu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jalli Narasinhulu Vs Smt. U. Usha Rani, IAS

G Anajan Reddy Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Vemparala Thejesh Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Lakku Srinivas Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

B.Ramesh Kumar Reddy Vs Sri. G.Jayanna

Kottu Veerraju Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh