Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.4 in updation of the On line Revenue Records for the land in an extent of Ac. 1.38 cents in Sy.No.30-1 of Sri Rangarajupalem Village, Pullampeta Mandal, Annamayya District, in favour of the respondents No.5 and 6, eventhough, the manual revenue records are stand on the name of the petitioner, that too without putting her on notice as arbitrary, illegal, colourable exercise of power and contrary to the procedure envisaged under the provisions of the AP Rights in Land and Pattadhar Passbooks Act, 1971 and the AP Rights in Land and Pattadhar Pass Books Rule, 1989 and also the well established legal principles apart from being violative of the fundamental and constitutional rights guaranteed to her under articles 14, 19, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same and pass such other order or orders.

The Court made the following:

ORDER:

1. The present Writ Petition is filed to declare the action of the respondent No.4 in updating the online revenue records for the land in an extent of Ac.1-38 cents in Survey No.30-1 of Sri Rangarajupalem village, Pullampeta Mandal, Annamayya District, without putting any notice to the petitioner, as arbitrary, illegal and in violation of principles of natural justice and it is also contrary to the procedure envisaged under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for short hereinafter called as Act) and also contrary to the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Rules, 1989 (for short hereinafter called as Rules), consequently prayed to restore the name of the petitioner herein in the revenue records.

2. It is the pleading of the petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition that they are the owners and possessors of the subject land and in the enjoyment of the same from the year 1961 and the Tahsildar shall determine as to whether, and if so in what manner, the record of rights may be amended and in consequence thereof and shall carryout the amendment in the record of rights in accordance with such determination. In the event of Tahsildar unable to determine the rights, under sub-Section 1 of Section 5 of the Act, he has to refer the matter to the Revenue Divisional Officer. And it is also further stated that the petitioner is in the possession of the property and they are growing mango tope in the subject land of the writ petition.

3. It is further stated that the procedure envisaged under Rules 18 to 20 of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Rules, 1989, for the rectification, preparation, and updating of the Record of Rights was not followed, and the 4th respondent (Tahsildar) deviated from the procedure contemplated under the said rules. Furthermore, it is contended that the unofficial respondents (Nos. 5 and 6), based on the illegal updation of the online revenue records in their favour, are contemplating the creation of third-party rights over the subject land. It is alleged that the 4th respondent failed to issue notice to the writ petitioner prior to amending the names of the unofficial respondents, rendering such action in violation of the principles of natural justice. As such, the petitioner is constrained to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the redressal of their grievances.

4. Heard Sri V.R. Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Navuluru Krishna Sai, learned counsel for the unofficial respondent Nos.5 and 6 and learned Assistant Government Pleader for official respondents.

5. The unofficial respondents Nos. 5 and 6 filed their counter affidavit, asserting that the land measuri