Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 2188
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J
kunchala srinivas – Appellant
Versus
the state of ap – Respondent
WP 6081/2025
P VIVEK, GP FOR REVENUE
The deletion of a name from revenue records without due process violates principles of natural justice and is contrary to established legal provisions.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ of Mandamus - Deletion of name from online revenue records - Petitioners claimed ownership of land acquired through ancestors, asserting deletion was arbitrary and violated principles of natural justice and Section 300-A of the Constitution - Court found that provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 were not applicable, and the deletion was contrary to the Tahsildar's report. (Paras 1-8)
(B) Natural Justice - The principles of natural justice were violated when the name of the petitioner was reversed without due process. (Paras 4-8)
(C) Administrative Authority - The authority's actions were deemed contrary to established facts and previous reports. (Paras 7-8)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners sought restoration of their name in revenue records for land previously owned by their father, who passed away in 1999. The Tahsildar had acknowledged their rights, but the name was reversed by the respondent.
Findings of Court:
The court directed the respondents to restore the petitioner's name based on the Tahsildar's report and allowed the writ petition.
Issues: The main issues included the legality of the deletion of the petitioner's name and the applicability of the relevant acts.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the deletion was arbitrary and violated principles of natural justice, emphasizing that the provisions of the relevant acts did not apply to the petitioners.
Result: Writ petition allowed.
ORDER:
The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following relief:
“to issue a Writ, order or a direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring action of the 4th respondent in deleting the 1st petitioners name from the webland/online revenue records in respect of land admeasuring Ac.0.50 cents in Survey No.464 of Perala Village, Chirala Mandal, Bapatla District previously Prakasam District as against law, highhanded, arbitrary and violative of principles of Natural Justice and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently i) direct the respondents to restore the1st petitioner’s name in the webland/online revenue records in respect of the aforementioned land and ii) direct the respondents herein to change the nature of classification of the land from government to private and pass such other order or orders….”
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondents.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners herein are the absolute owners and possessors of the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.0.50 cents in Sy.No.464 of Perala Village, Chirala Mandal, Baptla District, having acquired the same through his ancestors/ father. Originally the subject property was purchased by the petitioners‟ father through registered sale deed vide document No.2839/1986 on 08.09.1986. Since then, the father of the petitioners‟ has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject land and his name was also mutated in the revenue records and pattadar pass books were also issued in his favour by the revenue authorities. Later, the petitioners‟ father died in the year 1999. After his demise, the petitioner No.2 also relinquished her share to the petitioner No.1, as such, petitioner No.1 became the absolute owner and possessor the subject property. While so, pursuant to the application submitted by the petitioner No.1 for mutation of his name in respect of the subject property, the then Tahsildar submitted a report on 07.02.2022 admitting the rights of the petitioner No.1 as the legal heir of his father. The said report also clarifies that the vendor of the petitioners‟ father was alienated the subject land before 1954. As such, the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (in short “Act 9 of 1977”) are not applicable. Therefore, keeping the subject land in the prohibited properties list under Section 22(A)(1) is contrary to the provisions of Act 9 of 1977. Hence, recommended for deletion of the subject land from the list of prohibited properties. He further submits that considering the report issued by the respondents, the authority concerned not deleted the subject property from the list of prohibited properties and mutated the name of the petitioner No.1 as pattadar and possessor of the subject land and also issued 1-B Register in his favour.
4. While things stood thus, to the utter surprise of the petitioner No.1, now the respondent No.4 issued pahani dated 11.02.2025 reversing the name of the petitioner No.1 by replacing his father‟s name as pattadar of the subject land who expired in the year 1999, which is contrary to the principles of natural justice and also contrary to the provisions of the Act 9 of 1977. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners herein filed the present writ petition.
5. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for the respondents furnished written instructions dated 11.03.2025 issued by the Tahsildar/ respondent No.4. The relevant portion of the said instructions is extracted hereunder:
“It is submitted that the Government vide circular memo No.REV 08-22/490/20-2024-General-IGRS, dt.10.08.2024 have issued instructions to verify the lists of prohibited properties notified under Section 22A of Registration Act prior to the enforcement of Act No.35 of 2023 and G.O.Ms.No.596, Revenue (Lands-I) Department, dated.19.12.2023.
