ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

“…. to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Writs, Order or Direction declaring the action of Respondents in keeping the property belonging to the petitioner i.e. land adrneasuring Ac.10.83 Paiki Ac.3.81 cents in Sy.No.176 of Rachanapalli Village Fields, Ananthapuram Mandal and District in the category of “Digitally Not Signed” i.e. “Red Mark” as illegal arbitrary without jurisdiction violative of Article 300A of Constitution of India and to consequently direct the Respondents to forthwith delete the above property from the category of “Digitally Not Signed” and see that the same is kept in the “Digitally Signed List” forthwith and also not to evict the petitioner from the above land and pass….”

2. The short grievance of the petitioner in the present Writ Petition is that, without following the procedure contemplated under rule 9(1)(c)(iii) of the Andhra Pradesh Right in Land and Pattadar passbooks Rules, 1989, the Tahsildar has put the petitioner’s property admeasuring Ac.10.83 Paiki Ac.3.81 cents in Sy.No.176 of Rachanapalli Village Fields, Ananthapuram

2 RC, J Mandal and District under the dispute register in the category of “Digitally Not Signed” i.e., “Red Mark”.

3. Heard Sri N.Ranga Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri E.Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondents.

4. Sri N.Ranga Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit contended that, the rule is very clear, wherein the Tahsildar before putting property under the dispute register, has to held summary enquiry as contemplated under rule 9(1)(c)(iii) as envisaged under the Andhra Pradesh Right in Land and Pattadar passbooks Rules, 1989. Without following the same, the petitioner’s property has been put under the dispute register (Red Mark). As such, the present Writ Petition is filed and prayed to allow the Writ Petition, at the admission stage, as there is clear violation of the Rules. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgement passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.16312 of 2020 dated 20.10.2020, which is placed on record and has drawn the attention of this Court to the same.

5. On the other hand, Sri E.Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, submitted that, the petitioner, instead of approaching the Tahsildar concerned in this regard, 3 RC, J straight away filed the Writ Petition. In these circumstances, the Writ Petition cannot be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition.

6. In reply to the same, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that, when there is a clear violation of rule, there is no purpose to approach the concerned authority. However, a liberty may be given to the petitioner to make a representation in that regard and this Court may direct the concerned authority to consider the petitioner’s representation in accordance with law in a time bound manner.

7. To the said submission, Sri E.Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue reported no objection.

8. Perused the record.

9. Taking the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Assistnat Government Pleader for Revenue into consideration, as rightly contended by Sri E.Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue that, before appraoching the concerned authority, the petitioner has straight away filed the Writ Petition, wherein this Court cannot entertain the same. As such, this Court thinks it fit to give liberty to the petitioner to make a representation before the concerned authority, so that the authorities may consider and pass orders in accordance with law, as such, this Court is

4 RC, J inclined to dispose of the Writ Petition, at the admission stage, with the consent of both the learned counsel by passing the foll