Maakineni Padmavathi Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

VALETI VENKATA KAVYA,, D/O ANJANEYULU, AGED. 10 YEARS, BEING MINOR REP. BY HER GUARDIAN AND MOTHER SMT. VALETI VENKATA BHAGYA LAKSHMI, W/O ANJANEYULU, AGED. 40 YEARS, OCC. CULTIVATION, R/O CHILAMAKURU VILLAGE, MARRIPUDI MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.

¶15

...PETITIONER(S)

¶16

AND

¶17

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR

¶18

2

¶19

DISTRICT.

¶20

DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.

¶21

REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ONGOLE DIVISION, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.

¶22

TAHSILDAR, MARRIPUDI MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.

¶23

MAAKINENI PRASAD, S/O NARASIMHAM, AGED. 53 YEARS, OCC. CULTIVATION, R/O CHILAMAKURU VILLAGE, MARRIPUDI MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.

¶24

MAAKINENI LAXMINARAYANA, S/O NARASIMHAM, AGED. 53 YEARS, OCC. CULTIVATION, R/O CHILAMAKURU VILLAGE, MARRIPUDI MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.

¶25

MAAKINENI ANJAYYA, S/O NARASIMHAM, AGED. 53 YEARS, OCC. CULTIVATION, R/O CHILAMAKURU VILLAGE, MARRIPUDI MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.

¶26

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶27

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 a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature a WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the inaction of the respondents 2 to 4 on petitioners representation dt. 09.06.2023 and 02.08.2023 submitted to delete the petitioners' lands admeasuring Ac.0.23 cents in Survey No.57-12 mutated in the name of the 5th respondent, Ac.0.23 cents in Survey No.57-12 mutated in the name of the 6th respondent and Ac.0.24 cents in Survey No.57-12C mutated in the name of the 7th respondent, situated in Chilamakuru Village, Marripudi Mandal, Prakasam District, as the petitioners' above said lands were mutated in the names of respondents 5 to 7 by the 4th respondent without issuing any notice to the petitioners, as illegal, irregular, irrational, violative of principles of natural justice and provisions of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 and rules framed there under and offends Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents 3 and 4 to set aside the mutation of the names of the respondents 5 to 7 with respect to

¶28

3

¶29

petitioner's said lands by considering the petitioners' representations dt. 09.06.2023 and 02.08.2023 and to pass

¶30

IA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶31

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 to direct the respondents 2 to 4 to consider the petitioners' representations dt. 09.06.2023 and 02.08.2023 submitted to delete the petitioners' lands admeasuring Ac.0.23 cents in Survey No.57-12 mutated in the name of the 5th respondent, Ac.0.23 cents in Survey No.57-12 mutated in the name of the 6th respondent and Ac.0.24 cents in Survey No.57-12C mutated in the name of the 7th respondent, situated in Chilamakuru Village, Marripudi Mandal, Prakasam District, pending disposal of the main writ petition and pass

¶32

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶33

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 to grant leave to the Petitioner herein / Respondent No.4 in WP.No.26475 of 2023 to file counter affidavit in the above Writ Petition and pass

¶34

IA NO: 2 OF 2026

¶35

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 to permit the Leave petition to the petitioner to file Reply Affidavit in WP No.26475 of 2023 the interest of justice and receive the same on file and pass

¶36

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶37

1.SUBBA RAO JANDHYAM

¶38

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶39

1.YADAVALLI RAMESH

¶40

2.GP FOR REVENUE

¶41

4

¶42

The Court made the following:

¶43

ORDER:

¶44

To declare the action of the respondents in not considering the representations dated 09.06.2023 and 02.08.2023 made by the petitioners to delete their lands admeasuring Ac.0.23 cents in Sy.No.5712 mutated in the name of the 5^th & 6^th respondents each and Ac.0.24 cents in Sy.No.57-12C situated in Chilamakuru Village, Marripudi Mandal, Prakasam District, mutated in the names of respondent Nos.5 to 7, without issuing any notice to the petitioners, as illegal and arbitrary, the present writ petition is filed.

¶45

Heard Sri Subba Rao Jandhyam, learned counsel for the petitioner,

¶46

Sri Venkata Satya Narayana, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and Sri Yadavalli Ramesh, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 to 7.

¶47

Learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition contended that, the petitioners are the absolute owners of the subject property and their names were also mutated in the revenue records. While so, the respondents, without issuing any notice, mutated the names of the respondent Nos.5 to 7 with regard to the subject lands. He further submitted that the said action is in violation of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 and rules framed thereunder.

¶48

5

¶49

As such, the petitioners made representations dated 09.06.2023 and 02.08.2023 bringing the illegal mutation to the notice of the respondent authorities and to delete the said names. He further submitted that despite the same, no action has been taken by the respondents. If the said action is allowed to subsist, it affects the rights of the petitioners, as such, prayed to pass appropriate orders.

¶50

On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue on counter contended that the names of the unofficial respondents have been mutated in the revenue records including web land prior to mutating the names of the petitioners. He further contended that the petitioners are not in possession of the subject property and a complaint was also pending before the Instituion of Lokayukta. Further, if at all the petitioners have any grievance, they have to approach the Sub Collector by filing an appeal under Section 5 of ROR Act, 1971 or approach competent Civil Court, without doing so, the petitioners filed the present writ petition. The writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed, accordingly, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

¶51

Sri Yadavalli Ramesh, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 to 7 on counter contended that the names of respondent Nos.5 to 7 were there in revenue records and in the web land against the entries in Sy.No.57-12 of Chilamkuru Village, Marripudi Mandal, even before the names of the petitioners were mutated in place of Chennaiah. The

¶52

6

¶53

respondent authorities, mutated the petitioners names in a casual manner without following due process of law and they are not in possession of the subject land. He further submitted that the respondent Nos.5 to 7 are in possession of the subject land and the petitioners have no cause of action in filing the writ petition, the writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed, accordingly, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

¶54

Perused the record and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

¶55

Non consideration of the representations made by the petitioners dated 09.06.2023 and 02.08.2023 for deleting the names of respondent Nos.5 to 7 from the revenue records in respect of the subject land is the grievance of the petitioners. The contention of the unofficial respondents is that their names were in existence in the revenue records and web land even prior to mutation of petitioners names. The contention of the official respondents is that the petitioners have to approach competent court for redressal of their grievance. This Court is not inclined to go into the aspect as to whether whose names were there in the revenue records and the subject land belongs to whom. However, as the relief sought in innocuous, without going into the merits and demerits of the matter, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition with the following direction:

¶56

7

¶57

“The respondent authorities are directed to consider and dispose of the representations dated 09.06.2023 and 02.08.2023 so made by the petitioners and pass appropriate orders by giving an opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”

¶58

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of . There shall be no order as to costs.

¶59

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

¶60

_____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

¶61

Date: 08^th July, 2026 RKS

¶62

Whether the order is:

¶63

Speaking	Reasoned
Reportable	Non-reportable

Maakineni Padmavathi v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maakineni Padmavathi 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

Morampudi Venkata Krishna Kumar Vs Union of India

Tata Neelima Vs The Union of India

Pothula Vikram Vs the Union of India

M Harshavardhan Reddy Vs the State of Ap

Maruthi Constructions Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Tangellamudi Anitha Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh