Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Sri Justice Ravi Cheemalapati, J
M. Mahalakshmi – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
ORDER :
Challenge laid in this writ petition is to the orders dated 14.09.2022 passed in case No.D.Dis.D1/365/2022 by respondent no.2 confirming the orders dated 23.12.2020 passed by respondent no.3 in D.Dis.G/4474/2019 as well as the orders dated 23.12.2019 passed in proceedings Roc.73/2019 by respondent no.4.
2. The case of the petitioners, in nutshell, is that the land in an extent of Ac.0-60 cents in Survey No.134/3, Ac.0-28 cents in Survey No.134/4, Ac.0-27 cents in Survey No.134/5, Ac.0-38 cents in Survey No.134/6 and Ac.0-42 cents in Survey No.134/9-total Ac.1-95 cents (hereinafter, referred to as, ‘the subject property’) is the ancestral property of the petitioners and name of husband of petitioner no.1 was entered in revenue records as pattadar and enjoyer and the subject property and pattadar and title deed passbooks were issued in his name. Consequent to death of husband of petitioner no.1, the petitioners being legal heirs came into possession of the property. It is the further case of the petitioners that petitioner no.1 borrowed Rs.2,00,000/- from one Madduru Muni Govindaiah and executed registered mortgage deed by conditional sale dated 21.09.2025. Respondent no.5 file
A sale deed obtained through fraud is voidable but must be challenged in civil court; revenue authorities acted correctly in denying mutation based on existing claims.
The court reaffirmed that judicial authorities must adhere to principles of natural justice, ensuring all parties are heard before any adverse decisions are made.
Jurisdiction of revenue authorities to issue mutation orders upheld when confirmed ownership certificates exist, superseding prior claims based on disputed titles.
The court ruled that orders affecting rights must not be made without providing notice and opportunity to the affected party, emphasizing the principles of natural justice.
Revenue authorities cannot adjudicate title disputes in mutation cases; established rights remain intact despite challenges.
The court emphasized that revenue authorities must respect the principles of natural justice and cannot alter records without notice, especially when a civil suit is pending.
The Revenue Authorities cannot adjudicate complicated questions of title and ownership, which must be resolved by a Civil Court.
Immovable property transfers require a registered deed; agreements to sell or related documents do not confer title and cannot be used for property mutation.
Point of law: When the quasi judicial authority entertained an Appeal, a writ of mandamus cannot be issued, since it is only to prohibition from proceeding with the appeal. Writ of Prohibition can be....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
