ORDER

Heard Sri P. Narasimhulu, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 4.

2. The above writ petition is filed assailing the endorsement dated 11.07.2023 issued by the 4th respondent vide No.87/2023, whereby the respondent authorities declined to update the name of the petitioner in revenue records.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the endorsement passed by the Tahsildar, Srikalahasthi Mandal is contrary to Section 5(2a) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act’). He would also submit that the Tahsildar has no jurisdiction to reject the application without transmitting the record to the Revenue Divisional Officer. In case any application filed by the applicant is liable to be refused, the Tahsildar has to transmit all the documents to the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) with recommendations. The RDO under Section 5(2a) of the Act shall pass order either confirming or disagreeing with the recommendations of the Tahsildar. If the RDO disagrees with the recommendations of Tahsildar, the Tahsildar shall carry out the amendment of ROR as provided under Section 5(1).

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue would fairly submit that the endorsement passed by the Tahsildar is without jurisdiction.

5. As seen from the endorsement dated 11.07.2023, a spandana representation was made by the petitioner requesting the authority to record his name in the revenue records. By the endorsement, the Tahsildar rejected to mutate the petitioner’s name on the ground that layout was made in the land and other reasons were assigned.

6. As seen from the procedure prescribed under Section 5 of the Act, the Tahsildar ought not to have passed the endorsement impugned. Apart from that, the petitioner’s spandana complaint is not in consonance with Rule 18 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Rules, 1989 (for short ‘the Rules’). As pointed out supra, if in case, the Tahsildar intends to reject the application, must transmit the entire file with recommendations to the Revenue Divisional Officer. The Revenue Divisional Officer either accepts the recommendation or rejects the same. The Tahsildar has to implement the orders of Revenue Divisional Officer.

7. Case at hand, the Tahsildar, Srikalahasthi Mandal passed the endorsement without jurisdiction. Hence the impugned endorsement vide No.87/2023 dated 11.07.2023 is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, set aside.

8. If any person intends to mutate the name, an application in Form-VIA needs to be filed as prescribed under Rule 18 of the Rules. Complaint under spandana may not be proper.

9. In view of the same, the Writ Petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to make application in Form-VIA by annexing all the documents required under the Act. If such an application is made, the Tahsildar shall follow the procedure contemplated under Section 5 of the Act and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date: 30.04.2024 KAS

213 RI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI THE HON’BLE S WRIT PETITION No.10126 of 2024 Date: 30.04.2024 KAS