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.

ORDER:

RAVI CHEEMALAPATI, J.

The case of the petitioners is that one Sri Makkam Ramanjaneyulu s/o Makkam Venkata Reddy was the absolute owner and possessor of the land admeasuring an extent of Ac.9.61 cents in Sy.Nos.788, 784, 790, 795, 796, 797, 798, 786, 789, 802 & 807/1 of Potladurthi Village, and revenue records reflect his title and possession over the same. Later, the 1^st & 2^nd petitioners purchased the said land in equal halves by way of registered sale deeds bearing Nos.2062/2016 & 2063/2016 dated 09.09.2016, and they have been in continuous possession over the subject property. While so, the 6^th respondent taking advantage of the similarities in name, in order to make unlawful and unjust gain, filed O.S.No.33 of 2017 on the file of II Additional District Judge, Kadapa, against the petitioners herein including Makam Ramanjaneyulu s/o Makam Venkata Reddy for declaration of title and permanent injunction. The petitioners filed a written statement contesting the suit and no injunction was granted in the said suit. Meanwhile, the 6^th respondent herein lodged a police complaint on 07.08.2017 before Yerraguntla Police Station against the petitioners and some others alleging that all the accused had fabricated the documents and got the lands registered in their favour. The said complaint was registered as crime No.237 of 2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 468, 471, 474, 182, 120-B, 409 read with 34 IPC accordingly, charge sheet has also been filed and the same is pending consideration.

It is the further case of the petitioners that the 6^th respondent, pending suit, executed Registered Gift Settlement Deed dated 31.05.2018 in favour of the 7^th respondent herein and the same was registered on 01.06.2018. Further, the 7^th respondent made an application for mutation of his name in the revenue records before the 4^th respondent wherein the 4^th respondent mutated his name in the revenue records under A.P. Record of Rights and Pattadar Pass Book Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 1971), by orders dated 13.11.2018. The said facts were not brought to the notice of the Court in O.S.No.33 of 2017. The 4^th respondent passed the order of mutation in favour of the 7^th respondent when the revenue records are already disclosing the pattadar passbook issued to the petitioners herein under Khata No.1453 and 1306 respectively. When the pattadar passbook and title deed issued to the petitioners were already there, the 4^th respondent has no power to pass orders of mutation dated 13.11.2018 in favour of the 7^th respondent without notice, hence, filed the present writ petition.

2. Heard Smt.Sodum Anvesha, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for respondent Nos.6 & 7 and Sri Ajay, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the official respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners while reiterating the contents of the affidavit contended that, the petitioners purchased the subject lands from Sri Makam Ramanjaneyulu by way of two registered sale deeds and their names were mutated in the revenue records and pattadar passbooks and title deeds were also issued in their favour. While so, the 4^th respondent-Tahsildar passed impugned proceedings dated 13.11.2018 mutating the 7^th respondent name in the revenue records by deleting the petitioners names without issuing any notice as contemplated under the provisions of the Act, 1971 and Rules, 1989, as such, the order impugned is wholly unsustainable and contrary to the settled principles of law and in violation of principles of natural justice, accordingly, prayed to allow the writ petition setting aside the impugned order dated 13.11.2018 and pass appropriate orders protecting the interest of the petitioners.

4. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel for 6^th & 7^th respondents in elaboration to what has been stated in the counter submitted that the 6^th respondent is the absolute owner and possessor of the subject land and he is in pos