Jatipati Adilakshmi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Andhra Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Jatipati Adilakshmi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Andhra Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition allowed: impugned endorsement dated 04.03.2025 issued by the 4th respondent set aside; matter remanded to the competent authority to consider the petitioner's objections as per the CCLA amendment circular dated 24.09.2024; liberty given to the petitioner to obtain an appropriate order from the competent Civil Court; no order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions, if any, closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned endorsement dated 04.03.2025, issued without considering the CCLA amendment circular dated 24.09.2024, was sustainable, given that the amendment directs that where a title suit is pending and the Tahsildar is made a party thereto, the authority should place the properties in the dispute register even without interim orders from the competent Civil Court. +1 more

Court's answer

The CCLA further amended its circular dated 19.03.2024 by issuing an amendment dated 24.09.2024 bringing in certain amendments (including the mandate to place properties in the dispute register where a title suit is pending and the Tahsildar is a party, even without interim civil-court orders), and that clause was not considered while issuing the impugned endorsement.

Ratio / Principle

When a decree has been passed in favour of respondent No.5, the same has been executed, and the property is registered in respondent No.5's name, the authority is bound to consider the mutation application under Section 5(1) and (2) of the Act based on the records.

Key takeaways

The authority can reject a mutation application or place a property in the dispute register only where there is a specific prohibitory order from the competent Civil Court, an order by the authority under Section 5(5) of the Act, or a revision under Section 9 of the Act; in the instant case no such orders had been passed by any competent Civil Court or by the Revenue Divisional Officer in appeal or revision.ratio¶49
Without going into the merits of the case, the impugned endorsement dated 04.03.2025 issued by the 4th respondent is set aside, and the matter is remanded to the competent authority to consider the objections as per the amendment circular issued by the CCLA on 24.09.2024.ratio¶50

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Revenue records - Mutation - Application under Sections 5(1) and (2), Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 - Decree for specific performance in O.S.No.86 of 2018 (Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripeta) executed through E.P. and property registered in favour of applicant - Tahsildar's endorsement dated 04.03.2025 rejecting the objector's petition solely on the Government Pleader's opinion based on the CCLA circular dated 09.04.2022 - Held: once the decree is executed and the property stands in the applicant's name, the authority must consider the Section 5(1) and (2) application based on the records; rejection or dispute-register entry is permissible only on a specific prohibitory order of the competent Civil Court, an order under Section 5(5), or revision under Section 9 of the Act - However, the CCLA amendment circular dated 24.09.2024 (directing dispute-register entry where a title suit is pending and the Tahsildar is a party thereto, even without interim civil-court orders) was not considered while issuing the endorsement - Impugned endorsement set aside without entering merits; matter remanded to the competent authority to reconsider the objections per the amendment circular dated 24.09.2024; objector at liberty to seek an appropriate order from the competent Civil Court - Writ petition allowed; no costs.