Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Sri Justice Ravi Cheemalapati, J
Gummireddy Bharath Kumar Reddy – Appellant
Versus
State Of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
Key Points: - The Tahsildar mutated the 7th respondent’s name without proper notice, despite a pending civil suit regarding the same property (!) (!) (!) . - The Court held that revenue authorities cannot act on matters already before civil courts and must follow principles of natural justice, including notice before mutating records (!) (!) (!) . - The petitioners’ names remained in revenue records and pattadar passbooks, and the court directed restoration of petitioners’ names and keeping the property in dispute register pending disposal of the civil suit (O.S.No.33 of 2017) (!) (!) . - There is an ongoing civil suit for declaration of title (O.S.No.33 of 2017), and Section 8(2) of the Act precludes mutation while such a suit is pending; the court references that civil disputes should be redressed in Civil Courts (!) (!) . - The court disposed of the writ petition with no costs and directed restoration of petitioners’ names in revenue records (!) (!) .
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 1st & 2nd 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 6th 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 6th respondent herein lodged a police complaint on 07.08.2017 before Yerraguntla Police Station against the petitioners and some others alleging that al
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.
Revenue authorities must issue individual notices before altering land records to uphold natural justice, as failure to do so renders the action arbitrary and illegal.
Jurisdiction of revenue authorities is limited to statutory procedures; unauthorized actions based on invalid orders do not confer legal rights over property.
Jurisdiction of revenue authorities to issue mutation orders upheld when confirmed ownership certificates exist, superseding prior claims based on disputed titles.
Point of law: The demand for justice is not a matter of form but a matter of substance, and it is necessary that a “proper and sufficient demand has to be made”. The demand must be made to the proper....
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
