Disposed¶43

B.Yadunatha Reddy v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC3 Feb 2026WP/19556/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Mutation of name; Pattadar Pass Book; Title Deed; web portal updation; revenue records; Tahsildar; RDO Dhone; Nandyal; Bethamcherla; natural justice; notice and opportunity of hearing; quasi-judicial authority; remand for fresh enquiry; sale deed Doc. No.1393 of 1960; Ac.1.60 cents Sy.No.554/1B; W.P.No.19556 of 2022; earlier W.P.No.2205 of 2022 disposed 01.02.2022; Andhra Pradesh High Court, Amaravati; decision dated 04.02.2026; Justice Kiranmayee Mandava.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of: impugned proceedings set aside and matter remanded to the 4th respondent (Tahsildar, Bethamcherla Mandal) to pass orders in accordance with law after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within eight weeks; no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous applications closed. ¶43

B.Yadunatha Reddy Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh — Andhra Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶43

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned proceedings refusing mutation of the petitioner's name were passed without notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, in violation of the requirements of a quasi-judicial authority acting in accordance with law. +1 more

¶40

Court's answer

On a perusal of the impugned order, though an enquiry was conducted by the revenue authorities pursuant to the petitioner's mutation application, the petitioner was not shown to have been put on notice before the decision that mutation could not be effected.

¶40

Ratio / Principle

The Court considered it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by setting aside the impugned proceedings and remanding the matter to the 4th respondent (Tahsildar).

¶41

Key takeaways

The 4th respondent was directed to pass orders in accordance with law, after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within eight weeks from receipt of a copy of the order.ratio¶42

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Mutation - Refusal to mutate petitioner's name in revenue records and on web portal in respect of Ac.1.60 cents in Sy.No.554/1B, Bethamcherla Village and Mandal, Nandyal District, under notice dated 13.04.2022, challenged by son of the 1960 purchaser (sale deed Doc. No.1393 of 1960 dated 08.08.1960) who held Pattadar Pass Book and Title Deed. Held: although an enquiry was conducted pursuant to the mutation application, the petitioner had not been put on notice before the conclusion that mutation could not be effected. Impugned proceedings set aside; matter remanded to the Tahsildar (4th respondent) to pass orders in accordance with law after giving due opportunity of hearing within eight weeks. Writ petition disposed of; no costs. (Kiranmayee Mandava, J.)

¶1

[3458]

¶2

APHC010325192022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

WEDNESDA Y , THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO T HOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 19556 OF 2022

¶8

Between:

¶9

B.YADUNATHA RED D Y, S/O B.S. NALLA REDDY, AGED A BOUT 74 YEARS, OCC. AGRI C ULTURE, R/O D.NO. 11/93 BETHA M CHERLA VILLAGE AND MANDAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

THE STATE OF A N DHRA PRADESH, REP., BY ITS P RINCIPAL SECRETARY, R E VENUE DEPARTMENT, SEC R ETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMA R AVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶13

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, NANDYAL DISTRICT A NAN D YAL.

¶14

THE REVENUE DIVI S IONAL OFFICER, DHONE, NANDYAL DISTRICT

¶15

THE TAHSILDAR, BETHAMCHERLA MANDAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT.

¶16

P SRINIVASULU S/ O AYYAPPU REDDY, R/O. BALAP A LAPALLE VILLAGE, BETHAMC H ERLA MANDAL, NANDYAL DISTRIC T .

¶17

P VENKATESWARL U DIED, S/O. AYYAPPU REDDY R/O. O PPOSITE SESHA REDDY H IGH SCHOOL BETHAMCHERLA VILLAGE, NANDYAL DISTRICT .

¶18

POLURI KEDARNA T H REDDY S/O LATE P VENAK T ESWARA REDDY, R/O. OPPOSITE SESHA REDDY HIGH SCHOOL, BETAMCHERLA, NA N DYALA DISTRICT.

¶19

POLURI CHAITNYA B ABJI S/O LATE P VENKATESWAR A REDDY, R/O. OPPOSITE SE S HA REDDY HIGH SCHOOL, BETA M CHERLA, NANDYALA DISTRIC T .

¶20

RR 5 TO 6 ARE IM P LEADED AND RR 7 TO 8 ARE BROUGHT ON RECORD AS L.RS O F DECEASED 6TH RESPONDENT , AS PER

¶21

¶22

COURTS ORDER DT.18.09.2025 IN I.A.NO.1 OF 2024 AND I.A.NO.1 OF 2025 RESPECTIVELY

¶23

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶25

1.K MOHAN RAMI REDDY

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶27

1.GP FOR REVENUE

¶28

The Court made the following order:

¶29

Heard Sri K.Mohan Rami Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶30

learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents.

¶31

Despite service of notice, none appeared for the unofficial respondent Nos.5 to 8.

¶32

The instant writ petition is filed challenging the action of respondent No.3 in issuing the impugned notice dated 13.04.2022, refusing to mutate the name of the petitioner in the revenue records as well as in the web portal, in respect of land to the extent of Ac.1.60 cents in Sy.No.554/1B, Bethamcherla Village and Mandal, Nandyal District.

¶33

It is contended that the petitioner’s father purchased the subject property of an extent of Ac.1.60 cents in Sy.No.554/1B and Ac.12.45 cents in Sy.No.552/2, Bethamcherla Village and Mandal, Nandyal District vide registered sale deed bearing Doc. No.1393 of 1960 dated 08.08.1960. During his lifetime, he was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. After the death of the petitioner’s father, the petitioner has continued peaceful

¶34

¶35

possession and enjoyment of the subject property. Later, on application made by the petitioner before the revenue authorities, Pattadar Pass Book and Title Deed were issued in favour of the petitioner, and the name of the petitioner was also incorporated in the revenue records.

¶36

However, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that although the revenue authorities issued Pattadar Pass Books and Title Deeds, the Government's web portal has not been updated in the said regard. After noticing the same, the petitioner has made an application to the respondents to change the petitioner's name on the portal. As no orders were passed on the said application, the petitioner approached this Court by way of Writ Petition in W.P.No.2205 of 2022. The said writ petition was disposed of on 01.02.2022. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, the respondents passed the impugned order refusing to mutate the name of the petitioner.

¶37

Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that before passing the impugned order, an enquiry was conducted; however, no opportunity was given to the petitioner by the 4^th respondent. It is further contended that the impugned order appears to have been passed by the Tahsildar in his personal capacity and does not reflect the discharge of functions of a quasi-judicial authority.

¶38

A perusal of the impugned order reveals that an enquiry was conducted by the revenue authorities pursuant to the application filed by the petitioner for

¶39

¶40

mutation. However, it does not appear that the petitioner was put on notice before arrival of the recognition that mutation cannot be effected.

¶41

Having regard to the same, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by setting aside the impugned proceedings and remanding the matter to the 4^th respondent.

¶42

Accordingly, the 4^th respondent is directed to pass orders, in accordance with law, after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶43