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 4th respondent has mutated the name of the 5th 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 4th respondent did not issue any notice to the petitioner.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 5th 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 4th 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 5th 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 5th 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 his objections. Whereas, under the Act, issuance of notice to the affected party is mandatory, and the same has to be issued in the manner specified under Rule 19 of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Rules, 1989.

9. The contention made on behalf of the 4th respondent that the notice was published in the Gram Panchayat therefore the same constitutes a valid notice to the petitioner as well is not sustainable, as the 4th respondent was under an obligation to issue notice to the petitioner specifically addressing the petitioner, since the petitioner’s name was already reflecting in the revenue records, even though it is for a shorter period before the mutation carried out in favour of the 5th respondent as provided under Section 5(3) of the Act.

10. Having regard to the same, this Court deems it appropriate to remand the matter to the 4th respondent for passing appropriate orders with regard to the entry of the name of the 5th respondent in the revenue records, only after is