B Krishna Reddy Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

B Krishna Reddy Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Proceedings in D.Dis.C(F)/830/2025 dated 28.03.2026 set aside; matter remitted to RDO for fresh consideration after notice to parties and enquiry.

Issue for consideration

Whether the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) in proceedings D.Dis.C(F)/830/2025 dated 28.03.2026, deleting the petitioner's name from revenue records and mutating the name of the 5th respondent, is vitiated by violation of principles of natural justice due to non-issuance of noti

Detailed headnote3 paragraphs

The petitioner, B Krishna Reddy, claimed ownership of Ac.0.79½ cents in S.No.31/4 of Gajanki village, Karvetinagar Mandal, Chittoor District, by way of partition, and his name was updated in the records of rights with a pattadar pass book issued. The 5th respondent claimed Ac.0.50 cents in the same survey number and filed an application before the 3rd respondent (Revenue Divisional Officer, Nagari), who treated it as an appeal under Section 5 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971. The RDO, relying on the Tahsildar's report, passed an order dated 28.03.2026 (Ex.P1) directing deletion of the petitioner's name and mutation in favor of the 5th respondent.

The petitioner challenged Ex.P1 on the ground that no notice was issued to him during the enquiry. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (for respondents 1 to 4) and counsel for the 5th respondent both conceded that a perusal of Ex.P1 did not indicate issuance of notice to the petitioner. The court also independently found no service of notice.

The court held that the order suffered from a violation of principles of natural justice and was therefore liable to be set aside on that ground alone. It set aside Ex.P1 and remitted the matter to the RDO for fresh consideration. The RDO was directed to issue notice to both the petitioner and the 5th respondent, conduct an enquiry, and pass orders afresh strictly in accordance with the Act and rules. The petitioner was given liberty to raise the jurisdictional ground (that no appeal lay under Section 5(4) absent a Tahsildar's order) during the enquiry, and the RDO was directed to address it keeping in view the ratio in Appikonda Apparao v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2024 SCC OnLine AP 3263). The writ petition was allowed with no order as to costs.

[3331]

APHC010436442026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

TUESDAY, THE 15^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

WRIT PETITION NO: 24188/2026

Between:

B KRISHNA REDDY, S/O LATE BODI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, RESIDING AT PALLAPULNDLU VILLAGE, ERRAMARAJUPALLE POST, KARVETINAGARAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT

...PETITIONER

AND

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 522238

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CHITTOOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. - 517002

THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, NAGARI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 517590

THE TAHSILDAR, KARVETINAGARAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 517582

B KRISHNA REDDY, S/O LATE B. VENKATA REDDY, RESIDENT OF PALLAPULNDLU VILLAGE, ERRAMARAJUPALLE POST, KARVETINAGARAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. - 517582 ... PETITIONERS

...RESPONDENT(S):

Page 2 of 4

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 toissue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents especially the action of the Respondent No.3 herein in allowing the appeal filed by the respondent no.5 by treating the same as appeal vide proceedings in D. Dis. C(F)/830/2025 dated 28-03-2026 whereby the Respondent No.3 herein directed the Respondent No.4 to delete the name of the petitioner herein from the Revenue records and to mutate the name of the Respondent No.5 and further directing the Respondent No.4 to cancel the existing Pattadar Passbooks, without issuing any notice and without there being any jurisdiction as per se being illegal, arbitrary, unfair, irrational, violative of Principles of Natural Justice apart from being violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and contrary to the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Rights in land and Pattadar pass book Act, 1971 and Rules made thereunder and consequently set aside the proceedings in D. Dis. C(F)/830/2025 dated 2803-2026 passed by the Respondent No.3 herein as the same suffers from inherent lack of jurisdiction

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

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 suspend the Orders passed by the Respondent No.3 herein in proceedings vide D. Dis. C(F)/830/2025 dated 28-03-2026pending disposal of the writ petition

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1.V NITESH

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.GP FOR REVENUE

2.G L NAGESWAR RAO

The Court made the following:

ORDER

Heard Sri Karthik, learned counsel representing Sri V.Nitesh, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri Chandra Sekhar, learned Assistant Government

Page 3 of 4

Pleader for Revenue, for the respondents 1 to 4 Sri G.L.Nageswara Rao, learned counsel for the 5^th respondent.

Assailing the proceedings in D.Dis.C(F)/830/2025, dated 28.03.2026 (Ex.P1) issued by the 3^rd respondent, the above writ petition is filed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the absolute owner of an extent of Ac.0.79½ cents in S.No.31/4 of Gajanki village, Karvetinagar Mandal, Chittoor District, having got it by way of partition. The name of the petitioner was updated in the records of rights, and a pattadar pass book was issued by the 4^th respondent. Be that as it may, the 5^th respondent is claiming an extent of Ac.0.50 cents in S.No.31/4 and filed an application before the 3^rd respondent, who, in turn, treated the same as an appeal filed under Section 5 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short “ the Act ”). He would submit that no notice was issued to the petitioner during the enquiry said to have been conducted by the 3^rd respondent and eventually, Ex.P1 order came to be passed. He would also submit that without there being any order of the Tahsildar, no appeal would lie under Section 5(4) of the Act and the said aspect was not considered by the 3^rd respondent.

Sri G.L.Nageswara Rao, learned counsel for the 5^th respondent, would fairly submit that a perusal of Ex.P1 order does not indicate issuance of notice to the petitioner. With regard to the jurisdiction of the 3^rd respondent-RDO, he would submit that the 3^rd respondent has jurisdiction under Section 5 of the Act.

Sri Chandra Sekhar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, for the respondents 1 to 4, would submit that a perusal of Ex.P1 order does not indicate issuance of notice to the petitioner during the enquiry.

Thus, as seen from the order dated 28.03.2026 (Ex.P1), the 3^rd respondent relied upon the report filed by the 4^th respondent-Tahsildar and

Page 4 of 4

passed the order. The proceedings do not indicate issuance of notice to the petitioner, though he was arrayed as 1^st respondent. In fact, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue as well as learned counsel appeared for the unofficial respondent also endorsed that notice, as seen from the order, was not served on the respondent, the writ petitioner. This Court also does not find service of notice. Hence, this Court is of the considered opinion that without serving notice on the petitioner, the Ex.P1 order came to be passed. Since no notice was issued to the petitioner, the Ex.P1 order suffers from violation of principles of natural justice. On that ground alone, Ex.P1 order is liable to be set aside.

Accordingly, the proceedings in D.Dis.C(F)/830/2025, dated 28.03.2026 (Ex.P1) issued by the 3^rd respondent, are set aside, and the matter is remitted to the 3^rd respondent for fresh consideration. The 3^rd respondent shall issue notice to the petitioner as well as the 5^th respondent, conduct an enquiry and pass orders afresh strictly as per the Act and the rules made thereunder. Regarding the jurisdiction, the petitioner is at liberty to raise the ground during the enquiry. If such a ground is raised, the 3^rd respondent shall address the same and pass appropriate orders keeping in view the ratio laid down in Appikonda Apparao and others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department and others¹ .

With the above directions, the Writ Petition is Allowed. No order as to costs.

As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.

___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

PVD

1 2024 SCC OnLine AP 3263