APHC010152922022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3332]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

FRIDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 9540/2022 BETWEEN:

RAYADI CHINA SUBBA RAO, ...PETITIONER AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENT(S)

COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER:

1. V V LAKSHMI NARAYANA COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT(S):

1. KAMBHAMPATI RAMESH BABU

2. GP FOR REVENUE

3. GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS (AP)

The Court made the following:

Impugning the action of the 4^th respondent in mutating the 7^th respondent’s name in the revenue records for the agricultural land to an extent of Ac.2.00 cents in Sy.No.319/B2B of Dharani Kota Revenue Village, Amaravathi Mandal, Narasaraopet Sub District, Guntur District, without any notice and without following the rules laid down under ROR Act, the present writ petition is filed.

2. Heard Sri V.V.Lakshmi Narayana, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Krishna Praneeth, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and Sri Kambhampati Ramesh Babu, learned counsel for respondent No.7.

3. Sri V.V.Lakshmi Narayana, learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the contents of the affidavit, submitted that the subject land belongs to the petitioner and the revenue authorities also issued pattadar pass book and title deeds by mutating his name in the revenue records. The revenue authorities mutated the 7^th respondent’s name in the revenue records without issuing notice to the petitioner on the ground that the decree has been passed in favour of the 7^th respondent vide O.S.No.345 of 2002 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Sattenapalli. In fact questioning the said decree and judgment, the petitioner filed first appeal, which was dismissed and assailing the same, he filed second appeal and the same is pending adjudication before this Court and there is an order in favour of the petitioner. Knowing pretty well all these facts, the revenue authorities mutated unofficial respondent’s name. If the said mutation is allowed to subsist, the 7^th respondent may create third party interest for which the petitioner would be adversely affected and also it may lead to multiplicity of litigation, accordingly prayed to pass appropriate orders protecting the interest of the petitioner.

4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader contended that by virtue of registered document placed before the authority, the Tahsildar has rightly mutated the 7^th respondent’s name. If at all the petitioner has any grievance against such mutation, he has to approach the appellate authority but can’t ventilate his grievance before this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India. Accordingly prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

5. Sir Kambhampati Ramesh Babu, learned counsel for the respondent No.7, contended that the petitioner has entered into an agreement with the 7^th respondent wherein a suit for Specific Performance vide O.S.No.345 of 2002 has been filed by the 7^th respondent on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Sattenapalli. The trial court after full-fledged trial has decreed the suit in favour of the 7^th respondent and pursuantly aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the petitioner got filed the first appeal vide A.S.No.14 of 2010. The said appeal was also dismissed. The Civil Court on execution petition filed by the 7^th respondent, executed the sale deed in favour of the 7^th respondent and after such execution of the sale deed, the 7^th respondent filed an application for mutation of his name in the revenue records. By taking into consideration the said sale deed, the authority has rightly mutated the name of the 7^th respondent. By the time the second appeal was filed by the petitioner, the sale deed was already executed and mutation took place. In the said circumstances, the petitioner cannot find any fault with the said mutation. If at all the petitioner succeeds