Point of law: Mandal Revenue Officer shall determine as to whether, and if so in what manner, the record of rights may be amended in consequence therefor and shall carryout the amendment in the record of rights in accordance with such determination, provided that no order refusing to make an amendment in accordance with the intimation shall be passed unless the person making such intimation has been given an opportunity of making his representation in that behalf.

ORDER :

1. M/s. Annapoorna Financiers, registered partnership firm represented by Joint Managing Partner Gogineni Sudhakara Rao filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue writ of mandamus declaring the Endorsement of Respondent No. 3 vide R.C. No. 1135/2018/F dated 10.07.2019 and Endorsement of Respondent No. 4 vide R.C. No. 1666/2018/CS dated 29.10.2018 in refusing to update the record of rights and issuance of pattadar passbooks and title deeds in respect of Ac. 12-76 cents in Sy. Nos. 157, 137/1 and 137/2 of Pallapukodabu and Ac. 2-08 cents in Sy. No. 16 of Thamarabba villagesd of Devarapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District as illegal, arbitrary, violative of the provisions of The Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act’) and The Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Rules, 1989 (for short ‘the Rules’) and Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently set-aside the endorsements issued by Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and direct Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to update the record of rights and issue pattadar passbooks in respect of the agricultural land of this petitioner.

2. One Kodali Srinivas Rao and his wife Kodali Vijaya Lakshmi approached this petitioner, borrowed an amount of Rs. 69 lakhs on three different occasions, executed three promissory notes and deposited the title deeds, created mortgage by deposit of title deeds. Both Kodali Srinivas Rao and his wife Kodali Vijaya Lakshmi failed to discharge the mortgage debt. Thereupon the petitioner filed O.S. No. 142 of 2009 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam against both Kodali Srinivas Rao and his wife Kodali Vijaya Lakshmi, the mortgagers, for recovery of the amount due under the mortgage by sale of property.

3. A preliminary decree and final decree were passed for sale of the property. Thereupon, an execution petition in E.P. No. 16 of 2017 was filed and brought the property for sale. The decree holder having obtained permission to bid and set off, was declared as highest bidder and the Executing Court issued sale certificate. The petitioner filed E.A. No. 78 of 2018 for delivery of property and accordingly through process of the Court, the property was delivered to this petitioner on 20.09.2018.

4. On acquisition of right in immovable property in compliance of Section 4 of the Act, intimation was given to Respondent No. 4, who in-turn issued Endorsement directing the petitioner to file an appeal before Respondent No. 3 and Respondent No. 3 by proceedings, directed to issue pattadar passbooks and title deeds subject to the result in O.S. No. 5 of 2019 filed by the unofficial respondents. The petitioner also filed O.S. No. 23 of 2019 along with I.A. No. 45 of 2019 against Respondent Nos. 5 to 8 before the competent civil court and obtained permanent injunction, restraining the unofficial respondents from interfering with possession and enjoyment of the property.

5. The main contention of the petitioner is that, when the petitioner acquired right in immovable property, an intimation is to be made under Section 4(1) of the Act to mutate the name of this petitioner in the revenue records. Accordingly, he submitted an intimation through online, but the same was rejected by Respondent No. 4 while advising this petitioner to prefer an appeal, since the names of Respondent Nos. 5 to 8 were already recorded in the revenue records along ago, the names of the petitioners cannot be mutated in the revenue records.

6. Aggrieved by the order, an appeal is preferred before Respondent No. 3/Revenue Divisional Officer, who in turn issued peculiar direction to mutate the names of Respondent Nos. 5 to 8, instead of passing an order on the application of this petitioner, which is illegal and arbitrary. At the same time, Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 violated the procedure prescribed under the Act and such Endorsements cannot be sustained in law; therefore, sought a writ of mandamu