Reserved on: 17.02.2026

Pronounced on: 05.03.2026

Uploaded on: 06.03.2026

APHC010081252023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3330]

THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MARCH

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

WRIT PETITION No.4256 of 2023

Between:

1. C.V.NARAYANA REDDY, S/O LATE C.VENKATA RAMI REDDY,

AGED- 70 YEARS, OCC- BUSINESS, R/O 12-3-48, SAI NAGAR,

ANANTAPUR, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT

2. CHAVVA RAJA SEKHAR REDD Y, S/O LATE C.VENKATA RAMI

REDDY, AGED- 60 YEARS, OCC- BUSINESS, R/O 12-3-48, SAI

NAGAR, ANANTAPUR, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT

...PETITIONER(S)

AND

1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL

SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE SECRETARIAT,

VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT

2. THE JOINT COLLECTOR, ANANTAPUR, ANANTAPUR

DISTRICT

3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ANANTAPUR,

ANANTAPUR DISTRICT

4. THE TAHSILDHAR, ANANTAPUR MANDAL, ANANTAPUR

DISTRICT

5. CHAKARI CHINNA RAMANJANEYULU, S/O CHAKARI JUTURU

KASEEMAPPA, R/O RUDRAMPETA (V), ANANTAPUR,

ANANTAPUR DISTRICT

6. CHAKARI JUTURU SANJANNA, S/O CHAKARI JUTURU

KASEEMAPPA, R/O RUDRAMPETA (V), ANANTAPUR,

ANANTAPUR DISTRICT

7. CHAKARI JUTURU SIVA NARAYANA, S/O CHAKARI JUTURU

2

KASEEMAPPA, R/O RUDRAMPETA (V), ANA NTAPUR,

ANANTAPUR DISTRICT

...RESPONDENT(S):

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 a Writ or Order more particularly one in the

nature of one in nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for records in and

in relation to Proceedings D.Dis.No.D2(B)/1871/2022 dt.21.01.2023

issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer- Anantapur, Anantapur District

and quash the same holding it as illegal, in contravention of Provisions

of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadhar Pass Books Act, 1971

to the extent of issuing direction to Tahsildhar, Anantapur Rural Mandal

for mutating the names of Respondents 5 to 7 in Web Land Adangal

with respect to Petitioners' Open Lands admeasuring an extent of Ac 0-

58 Cents out of total extent of Ac 1-16 Cents in Survey No.36-2 situated

at Kakkalapalli (v), Anantapur Rural (M), Anantapur District.

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. KANAKALA DEVI PRASANNAKUM AR

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. M KARIBASAIAH

2. GP FOR REVENUE

The Court made the following:

3

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

WRIT PETITION No.4256 OF 2023

ORDER:

The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India for the following relief:

"…to issue a Writ or Order more particularly one in the nature

of Writ of Certiorari calling for records and in relation to

Proceedings D.Dis.No.D2(B)/1871/2022 dt.21.01.2023

issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Anantapur,

Anantapur District and quash the same holding it as illegal, in

contravention of Provisions of Andhra Pradesh Rights in

Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 to the extent of

issuing direction to Tahsildar, Anantapur Rural Mandal for

mutating the names of Respondents 5 to 7 in Web Land

Adangal with respect to Petitioners’ Open Lands

admeasuring an extent of Ac.0.58 Cents out of total extent of

Ac.1.16 Cents in Survey No.36-2 situated at Kakkalapalli (v),

Anantapur Rural (M), Anantapur District and pass such other

order……"

2. The unofficial respondents 5 to 6 herein submitted a

representation/application with a request to take necessary action for

mutation of land to an extent of Ac.0.58 cents out of Ac.1.16 cents in

Sy.No.36/2 of Kakkalapalli village of Anantapur Rural Mandal. The said

land is classified as patta land according to RSR of the Village and

stands in the name of one Sanjeevugari Chakari Nalligadu, who is

grand-father of the unofficial respondents. Their grandfather

Sanjeevugari Chakari Nlligadu is the diglot pattadar to an extent of

4

Ac.1.16 cents in Sy.No.36/2 had two sons by name Chakari Juturu

Nallappa and Chakari Juturu Kasemappa. Both the sons of Chakari

Nalligadu had been partitioned. The father of the unofficial respondents

i.e., Chakari Juturu Kasemappa has filed suit for partition, vide

O.S.No.563 of 2009 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Anantapuram, for partition. This suit was referred to Lok Adalat, which

issued an award on 03.07.2010, dividing the property into two branches,

each holding Ac.0.58 cents. Later, unofficial respondents herein have

applied to the 3

rd

respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer to record their

names in the revenue records. The 3

rd

respondent-Revenue Divisional

Officer after following due procedure and relying on the Award of the

Lok Adalat has permitted the 4

th

respondent-Tahsildar, vide proceedings

in D.Dis.No.D2(B)/1871/2022 dated 21.01.2023, to mutate the names of

the unofficial respondents to an extent of Ac.0.58 cents out of Acs.1.16

cents.

3. The said proceeding dated 21.01.2023 has been challenged in

the present Writ Petition by the writ petitioners herein on the basis that

an extent of Ac.1.16 cents in Sy.No.36/2 was alienated by Chakari

Juturu Nallappa, i.e., first branch of Sanjeevugari Chakari Nalligadu in

the year 1945. Subsequently, several transactions were occurred and

5

the 1

st

petitioner herein has purchased the property to an extent of

Ac.0.58 cents from C.Venkata Rami Reddy, through registered

document No.2314/2003 dated 28.01.2003 and the 2

nd

petitioner herein

has purchased to an extent of Ac.0.58 cents from K.Vedamma

Peddamanikyamma, through registered document No.3108/1984 dated

21.01.1984. Since then, they are in the original possession and

enjoyment of the property and they are the bona fide purchasers of the

property. The Revenue Divisional Officer is not the competent authority

to declare the title of the property as per the impugned order and the

unofficial respondents cannot file any application before the Revenue

Divisional Officer, who serves as the Appellate Authority, no

representation can be treated as an appeal and it is emphasizing that

the right to appeal is a substantive right and must be conferred by a

statute and the appeal is provided under Section 5(5) of the A.P.Rights

in Land and Pasttadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short hereafter called

as 'the Act') for against the original proceedings or substantive

determination under Sections 4, 5 and 5-A of the Act, unless there is the

impugned order from the Primary Authority, i.e., Tahsildar, and the

Revenue Divisional Officer cannot entertain the application and called

for report of the Tahsildar and the very exercise of the power by the 3

rd

6

respondent-R.D.O. is without jurisdiction and the petitioners herein have

made a layout of the land in question and as per the procedure to make

a layout, some part of the land has been gifted to the Gram Panchayat

as the land is not an agricultural land, the revenue authorities have no

jurisdiction to issue pattadar passbook and the Pattadar Passbooks Act

is inapplicable and the Adangals in the names of the unofficial

respondents are not the revenue records, as envisaged under Rule 3 of

the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Rules,

1989 (for short, hereafter call as Rules’), hence, prayed to set aside the

impugned order of the 3

rd

respondent-R.D.O. dated 21.01.2023.

4. It is argued by the learned Senior Counsel Sri O.Manoher Reddy

that under Article 110 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the unofficial

respondents have lost thrower right to enforce a right to share as the

limitation provides 12 years for a suit by a person excluded from joint

family property, non-filing of suit, as provided under Article 110 of the

Limitation Act, 1963, the unofficial respondents have extinguished their

right to property under Section 27 of the Limitation Act, 1963; on this

ground also, it is prayed to set aside the impugned order and further

argued that Section 44 of Transfer of Property Act comes into play. And

it is further argued that even assuming that the unofficial respondents

7

herein have filed an application to mutate their name is the revenue

records not for amendment of records that an application has to be filed

within one year as per the limitation prescribed under sub-section (3) of

the Act, as outlined in the provision “any person affected by an entry in

such record of rights may, within a period of one year from the date of

the notification referred to in sub-section (2), apply for rectification of the

entry to such officer as may be prescribed”.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the unofficial

respondents should have been initiated a suit to establish their rights

under Section 8(2) of the Act and further stated that the unofficial

respondents previously have filed suit O.S.No.426 of 2017 against the

writ petitioners, which was subsequently dismissed as not pressed.

Therefore, the unofficial respondents cannot claim right and title over

the property; additionally, it is stated that the Revenue Authorities have

no jurisdiction or lacks jurisdiction, as the agriculture land is converted

into plots. Hence, for all these reasons, prayed to set aside the

impugned order dated 21.01.2023.

6. Learned Senior Counsel relied on the order of a Division Bench of

this Court in the case of G.Damodhar and others Vs. State of Andhra

8

Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary reported in 2025 SCC Online

AP 3951. A Division Bench of this Court held that under Section 5(4) of

the ROR Act, the impugned order is clearly without jurisdiction,

inasmuch as there is no underlying order of the Tahsildar, against which

such an appeal could have been filed. Relying on the finding of the

supra stated order, the learned Senior Counsel has voiced that the said

judgment is squarely applicable to the present facts of the case, as the

unofficial respondents have filed application before the R.D.O. and the

R.D.O. has no jurisdiction to entertain the application filed by the

unofficial respondents herein.

7. Heard Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, assisted

by Sri K.Devi Prasanna Kumar, learned counsel for the writ petitioners;

and Sri P.Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel assisted by

Sri Karibasaiah, learned counsel for the unofficial respondents; and

learned Assistant Government Pleader for the official respondents.

8. On the other hand, denying the contentions raised by the

petitioners’ counsel, learned Senior Counsel Sri P.Veera Reddy, would

submit that the property in question belongs to one Saneevugari

Chakari Nalligadu who has two sons: first son is Chakari Juturu

9

Nallappa and the second son is Chakari Juturu Kasemappa and the first

son of Chakari Nalligadu has sold the total entire extent of Ac.1.16 cents

to third parties where the first branch has no salable interest over the

total extent of Ac.1.16 cents and the unofficial respondents, however,

have got the right to an extent of Ac.0.58 cents in the property. A

partition suit filed as O.S.No.563 of 2009 against Chakari Juturu

Nallappa, the first son of Saneevugari Chakari Nalligadu and the blood

brother of the unofficial respondents, has been decreed through a Lok

Adalat at the District Legal Services Authority in Ananthapuram. The

award affirms that the unofficial respondents hold rights to an extent of

Ac.0.58 cents of the property, while the vendors of the petitioners lack

any salable interest in the property belonging to the unofficial

respondents.

9. Learned Senior Counsel Sri P.Veera Reddy for the unofficial

respondents argues that the unofficial respondents herein made an

application to the 3

rd

respondent-R.D.O., who, in turn, obtained a report

from the Tahsildar, Based on the report of 4

th

respondent-Tahsildar, the

R.D.O. issued the order which is viewed as having been made by the

Tahsildar, and the suit O.S.No.426 of 2017 relied by the petitioners that

was not initiated by the unofficial respondents herein and the said

10

decree and judgment was not binding upon the unofficial respondents

herein. Furthermore, it is stated that the layout was not authorized by

the appropriate authority in accordance with relevant legal provisions.

The petitioners obtained a decree from the Lok Adalat under Section

5(1) of the Act and subsequently made an application to the Revenue

Authority. It is asserted that the writ petitioners cannot claim any rights

as the vendor did not have saleable rights over the property. The

unofficial respondents are not seeking any rectification regarding the

R.D.O.'s jurisdiction, which they assert is not valid in light of the Award

from the Lok Adalat. It is asserted that the writ petitioners cannot claim

any rights, as the vendor did not have saleable rights over the property

and the unofficial respondents are not pursuing for any rectification to

agitate that the R.D.O.'s jurisdiction, which they assert is not valid in the

light of the Award from the Lok Adalat, and the petitioners are having

the other alternative remedy before the District Revenue Officer under

Section 5(4) of the Act and further pointed out that the writ petitioners

have not made the vendors of the property as parties to the Writ

Petition. Article 110 of the Limitation Act is not applicable, since the

unofficial respondents have initiated a partition suit, which has been

decreed by the Lok Adalat, and it is further contended the rights of the

11

unofficial respondents have not been extinguished under Section 27 of

the Limitation Act and Section 44 of the Act is not applicable when a

clandestine sale by the one of the co-owner will not create any right /title

to third party purchaser in the property and the purchaser has limited

right to sue the property and the petitioner is required to file a suit for

declaration and also it is further emphasized that the petitioner has the

remedy of an appeal under Section 5(4) to the District Revenue Officer

against the order impugned, hence for all these reasons, it is stated that

the petitioners cannot seek any relief from this Court and the

contentions that are unsustainable under law, hence prayed to dismiss

the Writ Petition.

10. On hearing both the learned Senior Counsel and after giving my

thoughtful consideration on the pleadings, the following exposition is

given by the Court:

It is the primary contention of the petitioners that the R.D.O. is not

having authority to deliver the impugned proceedings dated 21.01.2023,

as he lacks jurisdiction and the petitioners are in continuous possession

since for several decades and the unofficial respondents have lost their

remedy to recover the possession of the property and relied on the

12

judgment of G.Damodhar and others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh,

rep. by its Principal Secretary reported in 2025 SCC Online AP 3951.

11. On perusal of the impugned order dated 21.01.2023, an

application was made by the unofficial respondents herein to the R.D.O.

to mutate their names. The R.D.O. passed an order, permitting the

Tahsildar to mutate the names of the unofficial respondents to an extent

of Ac.0.58 cents in Sy.No.36/2 of Kakkalapalli village, basing upon the

Lok Adalat Award passed in O.S.No.563 of 2009. As argued by the

learned Senior Counsel for the writ petitioners, the R.D.O. has not

declared any right, title over the property and it is only directed the

Tahsildar to mutate the names of the unofficial respondents, basing

upon the Lok Adalat Award passed in O.S.No.563 of 2009. According

to the Lok Adalat Award, the unofficial respondents are having right, title

over the property to an extent of Ac.0.58 cents.

12. It is imperative to take a review of the relevant provisions of the

A.P. Right in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971, governing the

issue for effective disposal of the Writ Petition.

13

13. Sections 3 and 5 of the Act have been amended in the year 2022

and the same is hereby extracted for effective disposal of the Writ

Petition as hereunder:

"3. Preparation and maintenance of record of rights in all

lands - (1) As soon as may be after the commencement of

this Act in any area, there shall be [prepared and brought up-

to-date, from time to time, by the Recording Authority] in such

manner, and thereafter maintained in such form, as may be

prescribed, a record of rights in all lands in every village in

that area and such record of rights shall contain the following

particulars, namely:-

(a) the names of all persons who are owners, pattadars,

mortgagees, occupants or tenants of the lands;

(b) the nature and extent of the respective rights or interests

of such persons and the conditions or liabilities, if any,

attaching thereto;

(c) the rent, revenue or other amount, if any payable by, or to

any of such persons;

(d) such other particulars as may be prescribed.

[Provided that whenever a resurvey/survey is

conducted in a village under the Andhra Pradesh Survey and

Boundaries Act, 1923, the Record of Rights in all lands in that

Village shall be updated as per the resurvey/survey records

prepared under the Andhra Pradesh Survey andBoundaries

Act, 1923(Act No.VIII of 1923.]

14

(2) When in respect of any village the preparation of the

record of rights referred to in sub-section (1) is completed,

the fact of such completion shall be notified in the Andhra

Pradesh Gazette [or the District Gazette] and in such other

manner as may be prescribed.

(3) Any person affected by an entry in such record of rights

may, within a period of one year from the date of the

notification referred to in sub-section (2), apply for

rectification of the entry to such officer as may be prescribed.

The said officer may, after such inquiry as may be

prescribed, give his decision on such application and direct

the rectification of the record of rights in accordance with

such decision which shall, subject to the provisions of section

9, be final.

5. [Amendment and up-dating of record of rights] - (1) On

receipt of intimation of the fact of acquisition of any right

referred to in section 4, the [Mandal Revenue Officer] shall

determine as to whether, and if so in what manner, the record

of rights may be amended in consequence thereof and shall

carry out the amendment in the record of rights in

accordance with such determination:

Provided that no order refusing to make an

amendment in accordance with the intimation shall be

passed unless the person making such intimation has been

given an opportunity of making his representation in that

behalf.

15

[Provided further that when the registration is approved

by the Registering Officer, the name of the claimant shall be

mutated in lieu of name of the executants on real time basis

provisional in electronically maintained data duly assigning

notional subdivision number as may be prescribed pending

enquiry by the Tahsildar:

Provided also that the provisional mutation shall be

confirmed by the Tahsildar electronically by following due

procedure under sub-section (3) within thirty days of the

registration. The aggrieved person may file an appeal to the

Revenue Division Officer within a period of fifteen days from

the date of order of the Tahsildar and decision of the

appellate authority thereon shall subject to the provisions of

section 9 be, final.]

(2) Where the recording authority has reason to believe that

an acquisition of any right of a description to which section 4

applies has taken place and of which an intimation has not

been made to him under that section and where he considers

that an amendment has to be effected in the record of rights,

the recording authority shall carry out the said amendment in

the record of rights.

(3) The recording authority shall, before carrying out any

amendment in the record of rights under sub-section (1) or

sub-section (2) issue a notice in writing to all persons whose

names are entered in the record of rights and who are

interested in or affected by the amendment and to any other

16

persons whom he has reason to believe to be interested

therein or affected thereby to show cause within the period

specified therein as to why the amendment should not be

carried out. A copy of the amendment and the notice

aforesaid shall also be published in such manner as may be

prescribed. The recording authority shall consider every

objection made in that behalf and after making such enquiry

as may be prescribed pass such order in relation thereto as

he deems fit.

(4) Every order passed under this section shall be

communicated to the persons concerned.

(5) Against every order of the recording authority either

making an amendment in the record of rights or refusing to

make such an amendment, an appeal shall lie to such

authority as may be prescribed, within a period of sixty days

from the date of communication of the said order and the

decision of the appellate authority thereon shall, subject to

the provisions of section 9, be final."

14. Whether the petitioners are having title or no title over the

property? Any title passes to the petitioners only the seller having the

saleable interest. Total property consists of Ac.1.16 cents belongs to

Sanjeevugari Chakari Nalligadu and the two sons have got share of

Ac.0.58 each, i.e., Chakari Juturu Nallappa and Chakari Juturu

17

Kasemappa. The first son Juturu Nallappa has sold the entire property

acquired by Sanjeevugari Chakari Nalligadu to the writ petitioners where

he has only a share of Ac.0.58 cents of land, no right title passes to the

writ petitioners. Admittedly, the unofficial respondents are the owners of

the property to an extent of Ac.0.58 cents and they have not sold the

property. The writ petitioners are not denying the above said fact either

in oral or in paper (writ affidavit). The petitioners who are claiming long

possession, their vendors have no title right over the property. The writ

petitioner seems to have been inducted into physical possession of the

suit property on the basis of sale deeds which is in question now. From

the contentions of both the learned Senior Counsels the title dispute

emerges and it has to be decided by the appropriate forum and under

Section 8 (2) of the act.

15. Learned Senior Counsel Sri O.Manoher Reddy for the petitioners

has also raised a legal ground concerning the application for mutation

by the unofficial respondents, counsel asserts that such an application

must be filed within a period of one year from the notification of the

entries in the revenue records and the unofficial respondents herein

have not made an application within one year while the Award was

passed by the Lok Adalat on 03.07.2010 that the unofficial respondents

18

should have been approached the Tahsildar for changing their names in

the revenue records but rather than the R.D.O. It is stated that the 3

rd

respondent-R.D.O., who is the Appellate Authority, without any order

from the primary authority or without out any source, the Revenue

Divisional Officer cannot maintain any appeal before the Appellate

Authority under Section 5(5) of the Act or the unofficial respondents

have to approach the Revisional Authority under Section 9 of the Act, it

is argued that the judgment of the Division Bench (referred supra-1) is

squarely applicable to the facts of the case, hence, for all these

reasons, it is pleaded that the impugned order is unsustainable in law

and prayed to set aside the same.

16. As per the amendment of Sections 3 and 5 of the Act, all

applications must be filed before the Tahsildar, if any such person

acquired any right, on the basis of succession, survivorship, inheritance,

partition, Government patta, Court decree or otherwise, the application

has to be made before the Tahsildar and the Tahsildar under Section 4

of the RoR Act, after proper enquiry into the matter, carry out

amendment to record and the claims of the persons and if the Tahsildar

is unable to pass an order, he has to refer the matter to the R.D.O.

under Section 5(2)(a) of the Act and in the case of sale deed presented

19

before the Tahsildar, he has to invariable record in the revenue record

and he cannot reject. In other case, if the Tahsildar passes an order,

the same is an appealable under Section 5(5) of the Act. If the

Tahsildar fails to pass an order and refers the matter to the R.D.O., then

the order of the R.D.O. has to be assailed before the District Revenue

Officer under Section 5(4) of the Act.

17. The issue for consideration is, whether the Revenue Divisional

Officer is the competent authority to adjudicate upon the application filed

by the unofficial respondents. The concept of jurisdiction needs

consideration. Jurisdiction means to determine all questions of law and

fact relating to the issue by the authority. Admittedly, the R.D.O. has no

jurisdiction to entertain the application for mutation. All applications

shall be filed before the Tahsildar. In the present case, the unofficial

respondents 5 to 7 have filed an application before the R.D.O. for

mutation/rectification of the mistakes. Even the judgment of the Division

Bench of this Court in the G.Damodhar’s case (refereed supra-1),

affirm the same. Admittedly, the R.D.O. has no jurisdiction. On this sole

ground, the Writ Petition is liable to be allowed.

20

18. A writ of certiorari can be issued for correcting errors of

jurisdiction committed by inferior Courts or Tribunals or Authority under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The impugned order by the 3

rd

respondent is liable to be set aside, who lacks the jurisdiction to deliver

the order pursuant to the judgment of this Court (referred supra-1) and

for the above exposition. It should be noted the alternative remedy

available under Section 5(4) of the Act is not a bar to entertain the Writ

Petition.

19. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order

is hereby set aside and the parties are at liberty to establish their right

over the property before appropriate forum. There shall be no order as

to costs. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications, if any, pending shall

stand closed.

__________________________________

JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

Date: 05.03.2026

siva

21

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

WRIT PETITION No.4256 OF 2023

Date: 05.03.2023

siva

22

The writ petitioners are not denying the above said fact either in oral or

in paper affidavit.