ORDER:

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:

“to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS, declaring the action of the Respondent No.3 in issuing the impugned notice vide Roc.No.172/2021/DT, dated 14.06.2021 to the petitioner is wholly illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice.”

The claim of the petitioner is that the husband of the petitioner has inherited the properties under a Registered Will dated 23.10.1982 executed by his maternal grand father by name D. Kamaraju S/o Venkat Ramaraju. After the demise of the executant of the Will on 07.07.1986, the husband of the petitioner came into possession and enjoyment and his name was also mutated in the revenue records. After demise of her husband in the year 2019, she succeeded the same and continuously in possession and enjoyment of the land to an extent of Ac. 2.59 cents situated in Sy.No. 388/1 and an extent of Ac.1.00 cents situated in Sy.no. 384/4A of Kalla Mandal, Narsapur Division, West Godavari District. While matter stood thus, the impugned notice dated 14.06.2021 vide reference in Roc.no.172/2021/DT was issued directing the petitioner and 4th respondent not to deal with the property in any manner during pendency of the disputes between the petitioner and 4th respondent, the same is questioned on the ground that the Tahsildar has no power to issue such direction under the impugned notice and if there is any dispute with regard to succession of property, the remedy is open to the parties to approach competent civil court, such direction issued on the impugned notice is illegal or without authority of law and requested to set aside the same.

At the time of hearing, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue Placed the instructions of 3rd respondent/ Tahsildar vide Roc.172/2021/DT, dated 21.06.2021, wherein he admitted about the issue of notice on account of application made by the 4th respondent for mutation of her name by deleting the name of this petitioner and directed not to deal with the property in any manner till settling the dispute, except that nothing has been stated therein.

Sri Challa Dhanamjaya, learned counsel for the petitioner, reiterated the contentions and mainly contended that the impugned notice was issued without any authority, at best an enquiry is required to be conducted under Rule 9(1)(ii) of Andhra Pradesh [Rights in Land] and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 and conduct an enquiry, if it is in dispute to enter the same into the disputed land register, instead of that, issued such direction illegally and requested to set aside the same.

Undisputedly, the claim of the petitioner is that she became owner of the property through succession from her husband, after his demise. Whereas, the husband of the petitioner claimed the property as legatee under the Will executed by D. Kamaraju S/o Venkat Ramaraju, but the claim of the 4th respondent is not known as on date. However, she made an application to mutate her name in all revenue records by deleting the name of this petitioner and the Tahsildar allegedly interfering into the matter. Prima facie that there is a dispute with regard to title to the property, but the Tahsildar is incompetent to decide the title to the property. While, disposing of the application submitted under Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971, except to conclude prima facie. Therefore, even to keep the property in disputed property register, an enquiry under Rule 9 of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 is to be complied with strictly, but no such enquiry is initiated till date. Therefore, the notice impugned in the Writ petition is without any authority of law and hence the same is liable to be set aside.

In view of the foregoing discussion, the order impugned is be set aside and declaring the action of the 3rd respondent is arbitrary, illega