2025:APHC:58897 APHC010020922019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3209]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

WEDNESDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA WRIT PETITION NO: 968/2019 Between:

1. B NARAYANAMMA, W/O.LATE SURYARAO, 62 YEARS, R/O.VELUVENNU VILLAGE, UNDRAJAVARAM MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER AND

1. S TATE OF AP, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

2. T HE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOVVUR WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT

3. T HE TAHSILDAR, UNDRAJAVARAM VILLAGE AND MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

4. B SURYAKANTHAM, WO.LATE SURYARAO, AGED MAJOR, R/O.TORREVU VILLAGE, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM MANDAL WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S):

1. SAI GANGADHAR CHAMARTY

1. GP FOR REVENUE (AP)

2. M V SURESH The Court made the following Order:

The present writ petition is filed aggrieved by the order of the respondent No.2 i.e., Revenue Divisional Officer, in cancelling the pattadar passbook and title deeds of the petitioner in respect of land in an extent of Ac.1.32 cents in Kaldari Village, Undrajavaram Mandal, West Godavari District, as illegal, violative of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 and for the consequential directions.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K Arjun Chowdary, learned Assistant Government Pleader representing the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Mr. M V Suresh, learned counsel for the respondent No.4, who appeared through online.

3. In the writ petition inter alia it is contended that by entertaining the application filed by the respondent No.4, the respondent No.2 passed the impugned order and the same is without jurisdiction. It is also contended that the respondent No.3 is competent authority to make entries in the revenue records or to amend the same on an application filed by any parties and by duly following the procedure contemplated under the said Act. Further that, as the impugned order has been passed straightaway by the respondent No.2, the petitioner lost the opportunity to file statutory appeal before the respondent No.2 and therefore, the order under challenge is liable to be set aside.

4. The contentions raised are well founded and the learned counsel for the respondent No.4 has not disputed the position in law.

5. In view of the same, this Writ Petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned order. However, this order would not preclude the parties from availing appropriate remedies in accordance with law. No costs.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

__________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA Date:10.12.2025 Ksj