APHC010695182022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3332]

AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

THURSDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 41056/2022 Between:

Kondapalli Venkataratnamala ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. M PITCHAIAH Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. T V JAGGI REDDY The Court made the following Order:

The writ petition is filed impugning the endorsement of the

2^nd respondent dated 31.08.2022 whereby and whereunder the application submitted by the petitioner to issue new pattadar passbook and effect mutation in petitioner’s name in respect of agricultural land ad-measuring Ac.1.91 cents situated in Sy.No.329/3 of Indugupalli villages, Kotananduru Mandal, East Godavari district was rejected.

02. Heard Sri M.Pitchaiah, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri J.Krishna Praneeth, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and Sri T.V.Jaggi Reddy, learned counsel for the 5^th respondent.

03. Learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents of the affidavit submitted that the petitioner submitted a representation to the Tahsildar for mutation of her name in the revenue records for issuance of pattadar passbook and the said representation was rejected by issuing endorsement impugned stating that the civil suit is pending between the parties and till conclusion of the suit, the authorities cannot entertain the petitioners representation. He further contended that the endorsement impugned is unsustainable and the Tahsildar cannot issue such an endorsement stating that till the civil suit is decided by the competent court, the petitioner’s application cannot be considered. Infact the suit that was filed by the 5^th respondent for injunction only and that too it was dismissed and feeling aggrieved by the same they have preferred an appeal.

Because injunction suit is pending consideration, the revenue authorities cannot deny the petitioner’s mutation application. As such, the endorsement is liable to be set aside and the authorities may be directed to consider the petitioners application.

Accordingly, prayed to allow the writ petition.

04. On the other hand, Sri J.Krishna Praneeth, learned Assistant Government Pleader while justifying the endorsement submitted that when a civil suit is pending between the respondent Nos.4 and 5 and petitioner, the authorities cannot entertain the mutation application filed by the petitioner. The Tahsildar has rightly issued said endorsement and there is neither illegality nor procedural irregularity in passing the said endorsement, this writ petition is misconceived, devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed and accordingly prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

05. On the other hand, Sri T.V.Jaggireddy, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.4 and 5 submitted that, the injunction suit filed by the 5^th respondent was dismissed and aggrieved thereby appeal was preferred before the first appellate court and the same is pending for adjudication. In the meantime, the petitioner cannot ask the revenue authorities to mutate her name in the revenue records for issuance of pattadar passbook. Even otherwise as against the orders passed by the Tahsildar, the petitioner has an alternative remedy of appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer or before the Joint Collector by virtue of Section 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971. The petitioner cannot ventilate her grievance under Article 226 of Constitution of India and this writ petition is misconceived, devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed, accordingly prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

06. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions of respective learned counsels.

07. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has made an application for mutation of her name and for issuance