APHC010437662022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3458]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 26782 OF 2022 Between:

1. G .VAIKUNTAVASULU, S/O G.HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCC- AGRICULTURE, R/O H.NO. 2/4 B.C.COLONY, VIRUPAPURAM VILLAGE, ADONI MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND

1. T HE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

2. T HE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KURNOOL DISTRICT KURNOOL.

3. T HE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ADONI, KURNOOL DISTRICT.

4. T HE TAHSILDAR, ADONI MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT.

5. S MT G SARASWASTHI, W/O G.SASTYANARAYANA, AGED 45 YEARS, R/O H.NO. 21/405, RTC COLONY, . BEHIND NEW RTC BUS STAND, ADONI, KURNOOL DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S):

Counsel for the Petitioner: J Janakirami Reddy Counsel for the Respondents: GP for Revenue B Sarvotham Reddy The Court made the following order:

Heard Sri M.S.P.Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri J.Janakirami Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Sri B.Sarvotham Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.5.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 4^th respondent has mutated the name of the 5^th respondent in the revenue records, i.e., 1-B (ROR), without notice to the petitioner.

3. It is contended by the petitioner that he is the absolute owner and possessor of the land in Sy.No.105/A and 251/A admeasuring Ac.0.94 cents and Ac.0.32 cents in Virupapuram Village, Adoni Mandal, Kurnool District, having acquired the same under a partition deed between himself, his father, and brothers, viz., G.Hanumanthappa and G.Satyanarayana.

4. In pursuance of the said partition deed, the petitioner has been in possession and occupation of the subject land, and the revenue authorities have also mutated his name in the revenue records. The petitioner contends that his name has been reflected in the revenue records as of the date of effecting the mutation in favour of the unofficial respondent. However, during the mutation proceedings, the 4^th respondent did not issue any notice to the petitioner.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 5^th respondent contends that she has purchased the property by way of a registered sale deed from her father-in-law, who is the father of the petitioner, for valid sale consideration.

Thus, the 4^th respondent has rightly mutated her name in the revenue records.

6. It is further contended that the name of the father-in-law of the 5^th respondent was recorded in the revenue records. However, only for one year, under the alleged agreement for the partition of the property, the name of the petitioner was entered in the revenue records. It is contended that the 5^th respondent being the purchaser of the property, for valuable consideration, she should not be subjected to hardship by deleting the name that has already been recorded.

7. Considered the submissions. Section 5(3) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) as it existed during the period relevant for this case, provides that before carrying out any amendment in the Record of Rights under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), the Mandal Revenue Officer is required to issue notice in writing to all persons whose names are entered in the Record of Rights and who are interested or affected by the proposed amendment. It further provides for the publication of notice in Form VIII in the notice Board of the Gram Panchayat and such other places as specified.

8. From the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents, a notice in Form VIII was generated and sent to the Village Revenue Officer for publication. However, it does not specify whether any such notice was issued separately addressing the petitioner, calling for hi