APHC010341252021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3332]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

THURSDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 20653/2021 Between:

Ongole Sesha Venkata Krishna Kumari ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. V SAI KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR REVENUE

2. PRABHU NATH VASIREDDY

3. B V ANJANEYULU The Court made the following:

ORDER:

The short grievance of the petitioner is that, having rejected the petitioner’s mutation application vide proceedings SPL.Reg.No.59/2021 dated 16.02.2021, and denying the issuance of pattadar pass books, the authorities have mutated the names of unofficial respondent Nos.4 & 5, in the revenue records in respect of the land to an extent of Ac.6.30 cents in Sy.No.267 of Ongole Village and Mandal, Prakasam District.

2. Heard Sri V. Sai Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri B.V. Anjaneyulu, learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 & 5 and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit, contended that, having rejected the petitioner’s mutation application and denied the issuance of pattadar pass books, the Tahsildar has mutated the names of the unofficial respondents without there being any application or order, and without hearing the petitioner. The said action of the authorities is illegal and impermissible under law. He further contented that, in view of the said mutation, the unofficial respondents may create third party interest; for which, the petitioner would suffer irreparable loss. As such, filed the present writ petition and prayed to pass appropriate orders in the interest of the justice.

4. On the other hand, Sri B.V. Anjaneyulu, learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 & 5, contended that if at all the petitioner has any grievance against the mutation in favour of unofficial respondent Nos.4 & 5, the petitioner can as well approach the Joint Collector, Ongole, by virtue of Section 9 of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971. He further contended that the petitioner did not assail his rejection order dated 16.02.2021. In view of the same, the petitioner cannot find fault with the mutation in favour of unofficial respondent Nos.4 & 5. As such, the writ petition is misconceived, meritless and deserves dismissal.

5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, on counter, contended that the mutation records are not traceable in office records. Further, the petitioner, instead of availing a remedy before the Joint Collector, Ongole, invoked the jurisdiction of this Court, wherein this Court cannot entertain the grievance of the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As such, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

6. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

7. It is not in dispute that earlier the petitioner’s application for mutation & issuance of pattadar passbooks and title deeds was rejected by the Tahsildar, Ongole, vide proceedings SPL.Reg.No.59/2021, dated 16.02.2021. Now, the case of the petitioner is that the Tahsildar has mutated unofficial respondent Nos. 4 & 5 over the subject property, without any notice to the petitioner, and without following the due process of law. There is some force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the respective respondents that, instead of availing the remedy under Section 9 of Act, 1971, before the Joint Collector, Ongole, petitioner filed the present writ petition.

8. Section 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971, is the relevant provision, reads as follow:

The Collector may either suo-moto or on an application made to him, call for and examine the record of any Recording Authority, Mandal Revenue Officer or Revenue Divis