JUDGMENT

Smt. Velivela Sarojini w/o late Sri V. Purnachandra Rao, filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning the action of Respondents 3 & 4 in altering the names in records of rights and mutating the names of Respondent Nos. 5 & 6 and issuing pattadar passbooks and title deeds in their favour with Khata Nos.906 and 918 in respect of land of following extent of land in Gudavalli Village, Vijayawada Rural Mandal, Krishna District.

2. The petitioner is the wife of Sri V. Purnachandra Rao. She is in possession and enjoyment of the land referred above situated in Gudavalli Village, Vijayawada Rural Mandal, Krishna District. The petitioner was blessed with only two daughters namely (1) Smt. Karlapudi Parvathi and (2) Kakarla Sivaleela. Husband of this petitioner V. Purnachandra Rao died intestate on 29.08.2017.

3. The properties held by husband of the petitioner devolved upon the petitioner and her two daughters equally and thereby, 1/3rd share was prearranged to each person being Class-I heirs. Since then, the petitioner and her daughters are in possession and enjoyment of the land held by late V. Purnachandra Rao, as on the date of his death.

4. As the matter stood thus, Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 mutated the name of Respondent No.5/Smt. Velivela Seshamamba in revenue record for the land in an extent of Ac.1-32 cents i.e. Ac.1- 17 cents in Sy.No.185/4 and Ac.0-15 cents in Sy.No.185/5A of Gudavalli Village. Similarly, Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 have mutated the name of Respondent No.6/Karlapudi Raja Ramamohana Rao in the revenue record for the land of an extent of Ac.2-22 cents i.e. Ac.0-22 cents in Sy.No.191/4B, Ac.0-20 cents in Sy.No.191/4A, Ac.0-86 cents in Sy.No.191/3, Ac.0-85 cents in Sy.No.191/2, Ac.0- 09 cents in Sy.No.191/1 of Gudavalli Village, Vijayawada Rural Mandal, Krishna District. It is contended by the petitioner that, Respondent No.5 is not related to her family; Respondent No.6 is the husband of elder daughter of the petitioner and he has no right to succeed the property of the petitioner”s family.

5. It is contended that, Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 did not issue any notice to the petitioner and her daughters, while mutating the names of Respondent Nos. 5 & 6 in revenue records, though they are unrelated to the family. As per the provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 5 of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for short “the Act”), the Mandal Revenue Officer shall before carrying out any amendments in the record of rights under Sub-section (1) has to issue a notice in writing to all persons whose names are entered in the record of rights and who are interested in or affected by the amendment. It is contended that, the Full Bench of High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Chinnam Pandurangam v. Mandal Revenue Officer, Serilingampally Mandal, AIR 2008 A.P. 15 held that, a