ORDER:

The present Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:

“…to declare the action of the 4th respondent in deleting the name of the petitioner from the Webland Adangal of the Agriculture land an extent of Ac.1.60 cents in SY.No.244 situated in Sirigiripadu Village of Veladurthy Mandal, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh, without following due process of law, as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondent nos.2 to 4 to re-enter the name of the petitioner in the Webland Adangal of the Agriculture land to an extent of Ac.1.60 cents in Sy.No.244 situated in Sirigiripadu Village of Veladurthy Mandal, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh..”

2. The case of the petitioner is that, he purchased subject property under Registered Document No.4945/2010 dated 03.12.2010 and ever since he is in possession of the property and his name was mutated in the revenue records and accordingly pattadar passbook and title deed have been issued by the 4th respondent-

Tahsildar, Veldurthy. It is further case of the petitioner that 5th respondent basing on the fake documents got filed suit in O.S.No.195/2012 before the learned Junior Civil Judge, Macharla for permanent injunction and the said suit is pending. In the year 2012, the petitioner’s name finds place in Pahanis and also in Webland Adangal of the subject property, but in the year 2015 the petitioners name was deleted. As such, several representations have been made by the petitioner to the authorities and on 05.08.2017, the 3rd respondent-RDO, Gurazala Division directed the 4th respondent- Tahsildar, Veldurthy to re-enter the petitioner’s name in the Webland. In spite of the direction given by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tahsildar has not re-entered petitioner name as such, the present writ petition has been filed.

3. To the said writ petition, the Tahsildar has filed his counter and also additional counter and in the additional counter it was categorically stated that 4th respondent-Tahsildar, Veldurthy kept the petitioners scheduled property under dispute category in webland erroneously on a mistaken impression that a title suit is pending before the Civil Court. And as of now, the property in question is not in ”disputed property list” and respondent will consider and pass appropriate orders as and when petitioner files proper application in that regard.

4. Similarly 5th respondent filed his counter denying the allegations interalia contending that, his grandfather Sri Thupakula Subbarraju has got the property under un-registered possessory agreement dated 26.04.1965 from Sri Vadlamanu Brahmaiah, father of the vendor of the writ petitioner herein and the vendor of the writ petitioner who is none other than the son of V. Brahmaih who has executed a memorandum of agreement dated 12.09.2007 admitting the said fact. It is further submitted that the 5th respondent’s grandfather Sri Thupakula Subbaraju had been in possession since 1965 without any interruption and later the 5th respondents father and the 5th respondent are in possession and enjoyment for the more than 47 years. It is further contended that, in the suit, an interlocutory application has been filed i.e., I.A.No.50/2018 wherein the court impounded the unregistered document for which the 5th respondent paid amount of Rs.67,060/-. It is also further contended that, the petitioner is not in possession of the scheduled property and he seeking to gather the evidence by way of Web Adangal and under the guise of writ jurisdiction to recover the possession and as such prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

5. Heard Sri Challa Srinivas Reddy, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and Smt Bharathi Lakshmi, learned counsel representing Smt B Geetha, learned counsel for 5th respondent.

6. Learned counsel for petitioner in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit contended that the petitioner purchased the schedule property by way of registered sale deed and his name got mut