Dismissed¶¶42

Narsipalli Ravi Kumar v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC1 Apr 2026WP/39468/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Mutation of land without documentary evidence; alleged mutual exchange of lands (Sy.No.253/21 Ac.0.25 cents / Sy.No.122/8 Ac.0.24 cents, Therlam Village, Vizianagaram); Tahsildar mutation and pattadar passbook/title deed cancelled by RDO appeal and upheld by Joint Collector revision (Rc.No.2772/SDT-I/KRRC dt.05.11.2022; D.Dis No. 627/2020/D dt.06.04.2021); Section 5, A.P. Record of Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Book Act, 1971; writ of mandamus under Article 226 refused; writ petition dismissed, no costs.

What did the court decide?

None; the Writ Petition was dismissed with no order as to costs, and pending miscellaneous applications were closed as a sequel. ¶¶42

Narsipalli Ravi Kumar Vs the State of Andhra… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the Writ Petition was dismissed with no order as to costs, and pending miscellaneous applications were closed as a sequel.

¶¶42

Issue for consideration

Whether the order passed by the 2nd respondent dismissing the petitioner's revision application — thereby confirming the cancellation of the mutation entries made in favour of the petitioner in respect of Sy.No.122/8, Therlam Village — calls for interference by this Court. +1 more

¶¶32

Court's answer

The order passed by the 2nd respondent does not call for any interference by this Court.

¶¶41

Ratio / Principle

The mutations effected by the Tahsildar in revenue records in favour of the petitioner are not based on any document, and the petitioner's contention that there was an agreement for exchange of the respective lands with the 5th respondent is not supported by any document.

¶¶40

Key takeaways

In the absence of any documentary evidence, the Tahsildar acted upon the petitioner's application and mutated land belonging to the 5th respondent in the petitioner's name, which is not in accordance with the procedure contemplated under Section 5 of the Act.ratio¶¶40

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Andhra Pradesh High Court (Amaravati), Justice Kiranmayee Mandava — Writ Petition No. 39468 of 2022 (decided 02.04.2026): Dismissed. The petitioner challenged the Joint Collector's order (Rc.No.2772/SDT-I/KRRC, dt.05.11.2022) dismissing his revision application, which had confirmed the RDO's cancellation of the Tahsildar's mutation entries and pattadar passbook/title deed in his favour in respect of Ac.0.24 cents in Sy.No.122/8, Therlam Village, Vizianagaram District. The Court held that the mutations were not based on any document, the alleged exchange of lands with the 5th respondent being unsupported by documentary evidence, and that mutating land belonging to the 5th respondent in the petitioner's name was not in accordance with the procedure contemplated under Section 5 of the A.P. Record of Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Book Act, 1971; the 2nd respondent's order therefore did not call for interference.

¶1

[3458]

¶2

APHC010662812022

¶3

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

¶4

THURSDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 39468 OF 2022

¶7

Between:

¶8

NARSIPALLI RAVI KUMAR, S/O JAGANNADHA NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O PEDDA STREET, THERLAM VILLAGE 85 MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELGAPUDI.AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

¶12

THE REVISIONAL AUTHORITY AND JOINT COLLECTOR, VIZIANAGARAM, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT.

¶13

THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, BOBBILI SUB-DIVISION, BOBBILI, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT

¶14

THE TAHSILDAR, THERLAM MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT.

¶15

NARSIPALLI SIMHACHALAM, S/O LATE APPALA NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/O. THERLAM VILLAGE 85 MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT

¶16

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶17

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 topleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the order passed by the 2nd respondent in Rc No. 2772/SDT-I/KRRC dated 05.11.2022 confirming the orders of the 3rd

¶18

¶19

respondent vide D.Dis No. 627/2020/D dated 06.04.2021 in setting aside the online entries made in favour of the petitioner in respect of Sy No. 122/8 to an extent of Ac 0.24 cents of Therlam Village and Mandal, Vizianagaram District, and - pattadar passbook issued in favour of petitioner as arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction, 'contrary to law and consequently set aside the same and pass

¶20

IA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶21

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 stay all further proceedings in pursuance of the order passed by the 2nd respondent in Re No. 2772/SDT-I/KRRC dated 05.11.2022 confirming the orders of the 3rd respondent vide DiDis No. 627/2020/D dated 06.04.2021 in setting aside the online entries made in favour of the petitioner in respect of Sy No. 122/8 to an extent of Ac 0.24 cents of Therlam Village and Mandal, Vizianagaram District and pattadar passbook issued in favour of petitioner, pending disposal of the WP.

¶22

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶23

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 grant leave to the petitioner herein/Respondent No.2 in the W.P.No.39468 of 2022 to file counter affidavit in the above Writ Petition and pass

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶25

1.TADDI SOWMYA NAIDU

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶27

1.GP FOR REVENUE

¶28

The Court made the following order:

¶29

Heard Ms. Taddi Sowmya Naidu, learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶30

Sri M.Chandra Shekar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4.

¶31

¶32

The instant writ petition is filed challenging the proceedings in Rc.No.2772/SDT-I/KRRC, dated 05.11.2022, of the 2^nd respondent on dismissing the revision application filed by the petitioner, against the order of the 3^rd respondent cancelling the entries made by the Tahsildar in the revenue records.

¶33

The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner and the 5^th respondent had mutually exchanged their respective lands located in Sy.No.253/21 of an extent of Ac.0.25 cents and Sy.No.122/8 to an extent of Ac.0.24 cents, situated in Therlam Village. Since 2008, the petitioner and the 5^th respondent have been in possession and enjoyment of the respective lands.

¶34

In accordance with the said exchange, the petitioner made an application to the 4^th respondent for mutation of his name in the revenue records in respect of land in Sy.No.122/8 to an extent of Ac.0.24 cents of Therlam Village. Based on the said application, the 4^th respondent mutated the name of the petitioner in the revenue records and also issued pattadar passbooks and title deeds.

¶35

Challenging the same, the 5^th respondent filed an appeal before the 3^rd respondent. The 3^rd respondent allowed the appeal, observing that proceedings of the 4^th respondent in approving the mutation in favour of the writ petitioner is not in accordance with the procedure laid down under the provisions of A.P. Record of Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Book Act, 1971. Being aggrieved by the said order, the instant writ petition is filed.

¶36

¶37

Despite the service of notice to the 5^th respondent, no appearance is

¶38

entered.

¶39

The 2^nd respondent filed a counter affidavit stating that the order passed by the 2^nd respondent is in accordance with law.

¶40

Considered the submissions. It is evident that the mutations effected by Tahsildar in revenue records in favour of the petitioner are not based on any document. The petitioner’s contention that there was an agreement for exchange of the respective lands between the petitioner and the 5^th respondent is not supported by any document. In the absence of any documentary evidence, the Tahsildar acted upon the application filed by the petitioner and mutated the land in the petitioner’s name in respect of the land belonging to the 5^th respondent, which is not in accordance with the procedure contemplated under Section 5 of the Act.

¶41