ORDER:

The case of the petitioners herein is that, 1st petitioner is the absolute owner of the subject property to a total extent of Ac.10.38 cents in Sy.No.446-2 situated at Prakasaraopalem Village, Nallajarla Mandal, East Godavari District which is ancestral property of the brother of the 1st petitioner and the petitioner acquired the subject property vide Will dated 28.02.2019. A codicil was also executed to the said will on 21.09.2019. Though the brother of the 1st petitioner herein bequeathed the subject property through WILL, upon a legal advice, executed a registered partition deed dated

28.02.2019.

2. It is further case of the 1st petitioner that, right, title and interest over the subject property vests with the 1st petitioner herein, vide registered will and partition deed and the said will came to force after the demise of brother of the 1st petitioner on 24.09.2019. Subsequently, the 1st petitioner made an application to the 4th respondent, for mutating the name in the revenue records with respect to the subject property and the 4th respondent has mutated the name of the 1st petitioner herein in the revenue records, after due enquiry under Section 5 of the Act 26 of 1971 and following the procedure contemplated under law.

3. Further, the case is that, she executed a registered gift deed dated 12.12.2022 in favour of the 2nd petitioner and thereby gifted the subject property to the 2nd petitioner. While the matter stood thus, the 5th respondent, claiming to be the successor of the brother of the 1st petitioner, filed an application for mutation of her name for the subject property, before the 4th respondent, basing on unregistered will alleged to have executed in her favour. Upon such application, the 4th respondent has issued public notice dated 12.12.2022 under Rule 19(1) of the A.P.Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Rules, 1989. Questioning the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

4. Heard Sri N.Ashwani Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri G.V.Rajendra Prasad, learned counsel for 5th respondent and Sri E.Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners in elaboration contended that, the 1st petitioner has acquired the subject property through registered documents and her name was incorporated in the revenue records after due enquiry. He further submitted that, 5th respondent claiming to be the successor of the brother of the 1st petitioner made an application before the 4th respondent for mutation of her name in the revenue records, basing on the same, the 4th respondent has issued the impugned proceedings dated 12.12.2022. He further contended that, after passing orders and mutating the 1st petitioner’s name in the revenue records, tahsildar will become functus officio and he has no authority to review his own order and cannot incorporate 5th respondent’s name in the revenue records. If at all the 5th respondent has any grievance to the said effect, she has to approach competent Appellate Authority for redressal of the same. He further submitted that, as the impugned proceedings/notice is issued without any jurisdiction and contrary to the law, the same is unsustainable both on facts and law and is liable to be set aside.

In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the judgment passed in W.P.No.17362/2021 which was confirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Telangana in W.A.No.504/2021. The said judgments are placed on record and has drawn the attention of this Court to the Paragraph No.7 and accordingly prayed to allow the writ petition.

6. Sri G.V.Rajendra Prasad, learned counsel for the 5th respondent on counter submitted that, 1st petitioner played fraud on the respondent authorities and fraudulently got mutated her name in revenue records, as such the order passed by the 4th respondent dated 23.11.2019 mutating her name is a nullity and non est in the eye of law. He further contended that, the 4th re