HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed to declare the action of respondents in not disposing online applications submitted by petitioners for mutation of their names in revenue records as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently, to direct the respondent No.4 to consider the same and pass appropriate orders.

2. Heard Sri G.Srinivas, learned Counsel for petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that originally, one Raghavendra Chary, who is great grandfather of petitioners herein is the owner and possessor of lands admeasuring Ac.0 – 31 gts in Sy.No.831, situated at Ibrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District and his name was also recorded in the revenue records; that after the demise of Raghavendra Chary, the said lands were devolved to the sons of Raghavendra Chary i.e., Narasimha Chary and Anantha Chary; that after their demise, the same were devolved to Bheema Chari S/o.Narasimha Chary, who is the father of petitioners herein and after his demise, petitioners succeeded to the subject lands; that petitioners approached Tahsildar, Ibrahimpatnam, for mutation of their names and the same was rejected, however, the names of V.Vittal Rao, V.Panduranga Rao, V.Harinarayana Rao and V.Srinivas Rao, were mistakenly mutated in respect of the subject lands vide proceedings No.B/8282/2017, dated 01.11.2017. Aggrieved by the same, petitioners preferred an appeal under Section 5(5) of A.P.Rights in Land and Pattedar Pass Books Act, 1971 (Act 1989), before R.D.O, Ibrahimpatnam, and the same was allowed vide Order dated 27.06.2020 and the Order dated 01.11.2017, was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the Tahsildar, Ibrahimpatnam, for fresh adjudication. Consequently, Tahsildar, Ibrahimpatnam, has taken up the matter in Case No.B/1129/2020, dated 05.09.2020, and has directed the petitioners to approach competent Civil Court, since there are counter claims in respect of subject lands.

4. Learned Counsel for petitioners would further submit that Tahsildar, Ibrahimpatnam, made specific observation that the names of Vittal Rao, Panduranga Rao, Harinarayana Rao and Srinivas Rao, were mistakenly incorporated in respect of subject property. In fact, they have reported no objection for deletion of their names. Therefore, Tahsildar directed the V.R.O delete the said names and restore the original entries in the revenue records; that in view of directions given by Tahsildar, the name of great grandfather of petitioners i.e., Raghavendra Chary was recorded in revenue records. Subsequently, petitioners have submitted online applications vide E-Challans i) CP 2100013445, dated 17.11.2021 to the extent of Ac.0-0775 gts in Sy.No.831, ii) CP 2100013441, dated 17.11.2021 to the extent of Ac.0-0775 in Sy.No.831 E, iii) CP 2100013440, dated 17.11.2021 to the extent of Ac.0-0775 gts in Sy.No.831 EE and iv) CP 2100013446, dated 17.11.2021 to the extent of Ac.0- 0775 gts in Sy.No.831 AA, for mutation of their names. Despite receiving and acknowledging the said applications, respondent Nos.4 did not act upon the same, therefore, the present Writ Petition.

5. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, on instructions would submit that respondent No.4 would consider the applications submitted by petitioners and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, if reasonable time is granted.

6. Considering the submissions made by learned Counsel for petitioners and learned AGP for revenue, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.4 to consider the applications submitted by the petitioners for mutation and pass appropriate orders strictly in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order, by duly issuing notice to the petitioners as well as all affected parties and also affording them an opportunity of hearin