Komma Mangamma Vs Y Lalitha

KOMMA MANGAMMA, W/O. LATE K. SAMBASIVA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 95 YEARS, OCC DEPENDENT, R/O. D. NO. 1/162-B, BYRAPURAMU VILLAGE, KOTHA CHERUVU MANDAL, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT.

¶12

NARAYANAREDDI GARI SARALA, , W/O. N. GOVINDA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, OCC HOUSE WIFE, R/O. D. NO. 3/20, CHINNA BABAIH PALLI VILLAGE, SOMENDEPALLI MANDAL, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT.

¶13

GANGAPPAGARI PARVATHAMMA,, W/O. G. SRINIVAS REDDY, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCC HOUSE WIFE, R/O. D. NO. 1/162-B, BYRAPURAMU VILLAGE, KOTHA CHERUVU MANDAL, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT.

¶14

...APPELLANT(S)

¶15

AND

¶16

Y LALITHA, , W/O. Y. RAMA CHANDRA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCC HOUSE WIFE, R/O. MALLAKALAVA VILLAGE, DHARMVARAM, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT.

¶17

C JYOTHI, W/O. C. SUDHAKAR REDDY, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC HOUSE WIFE, TADIMARRI VILLAGE AND MANDAL, SRI

¶18

2

¶19

RRR,J & TCDS,J W.A.No.928 of 2025

¶20

SATYA SAI DISTRICT.

¶21

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, , REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶22

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, AT PUTTAPARTHY, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT.

¶23

THE REVENUVE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, DHARMAVARAM, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT.

¶24

THE TAHSILDAR, CHENNEKOTHAPALLI MANDAL, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT.

¶25

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶26

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶27

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 pleased to suspend the orders dated 28.04.2025 made in W.P. No. 10910 of 2025, pending disposal of the writ Appeal and pass

¶28

Counsel for the Appellant(S):

¶29

1.G SEKHAR REDDY

¶30

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶31

1.BANDI SRIHARI

¶32

2.GP FOR REVENUE

¶33

3

¶34

RRR,J & TCDS,J W.A.No.928 of 2025

¶35

The Court made the following Judgment:

¶36

(per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)

¶37

The undisputed facts, as can be seen from the pleadings and material placed before this Court is that an extent of Ac.5.16 cents of land in Sy.No.619-2 had been assigned to Sri K. Samba Siva Reddy, in the year 1962. It also appears that another extent of Ac.4.88 cents in Sy.No.619-1 was assigned to his wife, Smt. K. Mangamma.

¶38

This couple had three children, namely, a son, K. Sankar Reddy, and two daughters, Smt. N. Sarala and Smt. G. Parvathi. Sri K. Samba Siva Reddy as well as his son, Sri K. Sankar Reddy have passed away. Sri K. Sankar Reddy left behind his two daughters - Smt. Y. Lalitha and Smt. C. Jyothi, who are the petitioners in W.P.No.10910 of 2025.

¶39

In the year 2020, mutation proceedings are said to have been passed, whereby the names of Smt. Y. Lalitha and Smt. C. Jyothi, were entered in the records as owners and possessors of both these extents of land. Thereafter, Smt. K. Mangamma and her two daughters, who are the appellants in the present Writ Appeal, have approached the Tahsildar for rectification of the entries. Apart from this, the appellants had filed O.S.No.56 of 2025, before the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Dharmavaram, for partition of Ac.5.16 cents of land in Sy.No.619-2, which had been assigned to late Sri K. Sankar Reddy and which is claimed to have devolved on the children and wife of late Sri K. Sankar Reddy. The Tahsildar, upon receipt of this request,

¶40

4

¶41

RRR,J & TCDS,J W.A.No.928 of 2025

¶42

had issued a notice to respondents 1 & 2 in the appeal, on 28.02.2025, to

¶43

show their rights and title over the two pieces of land described above. Aggrieved by this notice, the respondents 1 & 2 have approached this Court, by way of W.P.No.10910 of 2025, contending that the said notice is without jurisdiction and could not have been issued. It is contended that the appellants herein, again approached the Tahsildar, for rectification of the revenue records and the only avenue available to the appellants would have been to file an appeal before the Appropriate Authorities, under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (here-inafter referred to as “the Act”). It is further contended that the application for rectification had been made and consequently, a show-cause notice was issued in relation to both these extents of land and the same is also not permissible as a suit had already been filed in relation to Ac.5.16 cents of land, which is pending before the appropriate Court of Civil Jurisdicton. It is contended that in such circumstances, the Revenue Authorities cannot interfere with the rights of the persons, who are already before the Civil Court.

¶44

A learned Single Judge of this Court, by an order, dated 28.04.2025, at the stage of admission, had disposed of the Writ Petition, holding that the Revenue Authorities cannot seek to interfere in a dispute which is already before the Civil Court and had set aside the notice, issued by the Tahsildar on 28.02.2025 and another notice, dated 20.03.2025.

¶45

5

¶46

RRR,J & TCDS,J W.A.No.928 of 2025

¶47

Aggrieved by this order, the appellants have approached this Court, by way of the present Writ Appeal.

¶48

The contention of the appellants is that the notice was issued in relation to two separate extents of land and the suit for partition was filed by the appellants, only in relation to one extent of land. It is contended that in such circumstance, it would still be open to the appropriate Authority to consider the request of the appellants, for rectification of the revenue entries.

¶49

The appellants would also contend that the original mutation in the year 2020, obtained by respondents 1 & 2 was without notice to the appellants and as such, is a violation of the proceeding, which can be set aside by the Tahsildar himself.

¶50

The respondents 1 & 2, on the other hand, contend that the mutation, carried out in the year 2020, was done in a proper manner and it was done on the basis of the consent of the 1^st appellant, in as much as the land belonging to the 1^st appellant was given up by the 1^st appellant in favour of respondents 1 & 2 herein.

¶51

The learned counsel for the appellants objects to this version of the respondents, in as much as the said version was not pleaded anywhere in the proceedings and the said version has now been put forward by the learned counsel for respondents 1 & 2.

¶52

6

¶53

RRR,J & TCDS,J W.A.No.928 of 2025

¶54

Without going into all the aforesaid claims and counter-claims, the

¶55

present Writ Appeal can be disposed of, on the basis of the jurisdiction involved.

¶56

As far as the land in Sy.No.619-1, admeasuring Ac.4.88 cents of land is concerned, there is no dispute that this land belonged to Smt. K. Mangamma, who is the 1^st appellant herein. The mutation, said to have been carried in favour of respondents 1 & 2 is now challenged by Smt. K. Mangamma, on the ground that the said mutation was not done with her consent. Further, this piece of land is not the subject matter of the suit. In such circumstances, it would be open to Smt. K. Mangamma to assail the said mutation of 2020. However, the manner in which the said mutation is to be assailed would have to be in accordance with the provisions of the Act.

¶57

Section 5 of the Act sets out the procedure that has to be followed for amending or updating the record of rights. The respondents 1 & 2 claim that the said procedure was followed in the year, 2020, when the record of rights was changed and the names of the respondents 1 & 2, had been recorded in the revenue records, as the owners and possessors of Ac.5.16 cents of land in Sy.No.619-2, which had been assigned to Sri K. Samba Siva Reddy and also for an extent of Ac.4.88 cents of land, in Sy.No.619-1, which had been assigned to the 1^st appellant.

¶58

The appellants, including the 1^st appellant, contend that the said mutation proceedings had been conducted without notice to any of the

¶59

7

¶60

RRR,J & TCDS,J W.A.No.928 of 2025

¶61

appellants and that, the land admeasuring Ac.4.88 cents of land in Sy.No.619-1 could not have been mutated during the lifetime of the 1^st appellant.

¶62

It would be difficult for this Court to go into the question as to whether the procedures set out in Section 5 of the Act, have been complied or not, in the mutation proceedings, in the year, 2020. However, this issue can be looked into by the 4^th respondent - District Collector, in Revisional Proceedings, under Section 9 of the Act. In these circumstances, it would only be appropriate that the 4^th respondent – District Collector, is directed to take up the matter as a suo moto revision under Section 9 of the Act.

¶63

The respondents have also raised a contention that the pendency of the suit proceedings would be a bar to the Revenue Authorities for looking into the claims of the appellants. Section 8 (2) of the Act provides for filing of a suit for declaration of the right of a party, whenever such a person is aggrieved by any entry made in any record, which denies his/her title. Essentially, this would mean that the suit would be a nature of a suit for declaration. In the present case, the appellants had filed a suit for partition of the land admeasuring Ac.5.16 cents, in Sy.No.619-2, on the ground that, they are also legal heirs to late Sri K. Samba Siva Reddy and would be entitled to a share in the said land. A suit for partition cannot be equated with a suit for declaration, under Section 8(2) of the Act. Infact, a learned Single Judge of

¶64

8

¶65

RRR,J & TCDS,J W.A.No.928 of 2025

¶66

this Court, in his judgment, in the case of V. Sarojini Vs. State of A.P.¹ , had taken the same view and we would affirm the view taken by the learned Single Judge.

¶67

For all the aforesaid reasons, this Writ Appeal is disposed of with a direction to the 4^th respondent – District Collector to take up the claim and revision of the appellants, filed before the Tahsildar, as a suo moto revision and pass necessary orders, after giving due opportunity of hearing to all the concerned parties. The said exercise is to be completed within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶68

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶69

________________________

¶70

R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J

¶71

________________ T.C.D. SEKHAR, J

¶72

Date:06.01.2026 MJA/KPV

¶73

1 2021 SCC Online AP 2387