As per case facts, petitioners and Respondent No.6, being brothers, owned land from 1997-2010. A portion was acquired, and the remaining was in their possession. The 5th respondent sought correction ...
1
APHC010278582024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA
PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
[3208]
FRIDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF JANUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH
WRIT PETITION NO: 13958/2024
Between:
1. JETTI JAGANNADHA RAO,, S/O LATE SRI SURYA RAO,
BUSINESS, AGED 65 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.35 -11-12,
MANGALAVARAPUPETA, RAJ AM AHENDR AVARAM,
EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.
2. JETTI NAGESWARA RAO, S/O LATE SRI SURYA RAO,
BUSINESS, AGED 63 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.35-11-12,
MANGALAVARAPUPETA, RAJ AMAHENDRAVARAM,
EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.
3. JETTI VENKATA RAO,, S/O LATE SRI SURYA RAO,
BUSINESS, AGED 83 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.35 -11-12,
MANGALAVARAPUPETA, RAJ AMAHENDRAVARAM,
EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.
4. JETTI SATYANARAYANA,, S/O LATE SRI SURYA RAO,
BUSINESS, AGED 80 YEARS. R/O.D.NO.35 -11-12,
MANGALAVARAPUPETA, RAJ AMAHENDRAVARAM,
EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.
5. JETTI PRASADA RAO,, S/O LATE SRI SURYA RAO,
BUSINESS, AGED 75 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.35 -11-12,
MANGALAVARAPUPETA, RAJ AMAHENDRAVARAM.
2
DR, J
W.P.No.13958 of 2024
EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.
6. JETTI RAMA RAO,, S/O LATE SRI SURYA RAO,
BUSINESS, AGED 70 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.35 -11-12,
MANGALAVARAPUPETA, RAJ AMAHENDRAVARAM,
EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRL.
SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
2. THE REVISION AUTHORITY AND JOINT COLLECTOR
AND ADDL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, EAST GODAVARI
DISTRICT., RAJ AMAHENDRAVARAM.
3. THE REVENUE DIVISI ONAL OFFICER R D O, RAJ
AMAHENDRAVARAM. EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.
4. THE TAHSILDAR, RAJANAGARAM MANDAL, EAST
GODAVARI DIST.
5. KANDULA SATYAVATHI, W/O LATE VEERA RAGHAVA
SWAMY NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/O
DIWANCHERUVU. RAJANAGARAM MANDAL. EAST
GODAVARI DISTRICT.
6. JETTI GOVINDA RAO, S/O LATE SRI SURYA RAO,
BUSINESS, AGED 73 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.35 -11-12,
MANGALAVARAPUPETA, RAJ AMAHENDRAVARAM,
EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT(S):
3
DR, J
W.P.No.13958 of 2024
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. P RAJESH BABU
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR REVENUE
2. G R SUDHAKAR
The Court made the following:
4
DR, J
W.P.No.13958 of 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D .RAMESH
WRIT PETITION No.13958 of 2024
ORDER:
The present writ petition is filed aggrieved by the orders
dated 01.06.2024 passed by the 2
nd
respondent-revisional
authority.
2. The petitioners and respondent No.6 are all brothers and
they are the absolute owners of the land for an extent of Ac.31.61
cents in R.S.No.115 of Palacherla Village, Rajanagaram Mandal,
East Godavari District. The said land has been acquired by them
under different sale deeds from different independent owners
from 1997 to 2010. Accordingly, their names were entered in
revenue records mentioning the extent of land by each person.
Out of Ac.31.61 cents, an extent of Ac.4.48 cents of land was
acquired under Land Acquisition Act and rest of Ac.27.13 cents
have been in physical possession and enjoyment of the
petitioners.
3. The 5
th
respondent has approached this Court and filed
W.P.No.25568 of 2018 questioning the inaction of respondent
No.4 in considering her representation made on 17.05.2017 for
5
DR, J
W.P.No.13958 of 2024
correction of revenue records over the land for an extent of
Ac.4.65 cents instead of Ac.3.13 cents. The said writ petition was
disposed of on 11.07.2023 giving liberty to the petitioner
therein/5
th
respondent herein to file an appeal/revision before the
appropriate authority regarding her claim to mutate her name
against the land of an extent of Ac.4.78 cents. Consequent to the
disposal of the said writ petition, the 5
th
respondent has filed a
revision before the 2
nd
respondent under Section 9 of the Andhra
Pradesh Rights and Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for
short, „the Act‟) making all the petitioners and the 6
th
respondent
herein as respondent Nos.2 to 8 wherein they have filed their
counter taking an objection that the 2
nd
respondent has no
authority to entertain the revision filed under Section 9 of the Act.
But the revisional authority, without considering the facts
mentioned in the counter filed to the revision petition, allowed the
revision with the following directions:
“In the exercise of powers conferred under Section
9 of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act,
1971, the Court is hereby issued orders that the Tahsildar,
Rajanagaram is directed to delete the entire pattadars in
R.S.No.115 except Chagalanadu Canal extent Ac.6.13 cts
and to mutate the land an extent of Ac.6.49 cts in favour of
6
DR, J
W.P.No.13958 of 2024
the revision petitioner who is having enjoyment Ac.7.77
cts. The Tahsildar, Rajanagaram is also directed to
mutate the land for Ac.1.26 cts in R.S.No.115 in the name
of Endowment department as the above land is also
marked in Prohibited Properties list of 22-A(1)(e) of
Registration Act, 1908 and also mutate the balance extent
to Jetti family after taken assent and confirmation of
boundaries as per the documents and physical possession
and issue necessary record of rights as per rules in
vogue.”
4. Aggrieved by the said orders, the present writ petition is
filed.
5. The said orders were assailed on three grounds. The first
ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the
revision is not maintainable if at all the 5
th
respondent has any
grievance in mutation/entries made in favour of the petitioners
and the 6
th
respondent herein, she ought to have filed an appeal
before the Revenue Divisional Officer but not the revision before
the 2
nd
respondent. The second ground is that the 5
th
respondent
has approached the 4
th
respondent for mutation of her name for
total extent of Ac.4.78 cents beyond limitation prescribed under
the Act. Hence, the revisional authority is not entitled to entertain
the revision without considering the delay. The third ground
7
DR, J
W.P.No.13958 of 2024
raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the total
extent of land in R.S.No.115 purchased by petitioners and the 6
th
respondent by different sale deeds from 1997 to 2010 is Ac.31.61
cents. Out of which, Ac.4.48 cents have acquired by the
Government under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act for
Chagalnadu Lift Irrigation Scheme and rest of Ac.27.13 cents
were mutated in favour of the petitioners and actually they are in
possession. The 5
th
respondent has filed the revision for
mutation of land for an extent of Ac.4.75 cents, but the 2
nd
respondent has allowed the revision directing the authorities to
mutate the land for Ac.6.49 cents and hence, the relief granted by
the revisional authority is beyond the prayer made by the 5
th
respondent in the revision petition.
6. Considering the first ground, Section 9 of the Act reads as
follows:
“9. Revision - The Collector may either suo-motu or on an
application made to him, call for and examine the record of
any Recording Authority, Mandal Revenue Officer or
Revenue Divisional Officer under sections 3, 5, 5A or 5B, in
respect of any record of rights prepared or maintained to
satisfy himself as to the regularity, correctness, legality or
propriety of any decision taken, order passed or
proceedings made in respect thereof and if it appears to
8
DR, J
W.P.No.13958 of 2024
the Collector that any such decision, order or proceedings
should be modified, annulled or reversed or remitted for
reconsideration, he may pass orders accordingly:
Provided that no such order adversely affecting any person
shall be passed under this Section unless he had an
opportunity of making a representation.”
7. On perusal of the above provision, it clearly demonstrates
that either suo-motu or an application filed before the Collector, he
may call for and examine the record of any Recording Authority,
Mandal Revenue Officer or Revenue Divisional Officer under
sections 3, 5, 5A or 5B. Hence, the first ground raised by the
learned counsel for the petitioners is rejected and declaring that
the revision is maintainable against any irregular entries made by
the competent authority.
8. The second ground raised by the learned counsel for the
petitioners that the application moved by the 5
th
respondent is
beyond the time prescribed under the provisions of the Act.
Hence, the revisional authority ought to have considered before
proceeding the revision with regard to delay.
9. To reply to the said contention, Section 3(3) of the Act
prescribes any person affected by an entry in such record of
9
DR, J
W.P.No.13958 of 2024
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. According to the said provision, while recording the
initial entry as per Section 3 of the Act and after notification, if any
person is aggrieved by the said notification, he has to file an
application under Section 3(3) of the Act within a period of one
year. On perusal of Section 9 of the Act, it shows that no such
time limit has prescribed. Hence, the second ground raised by
the learned counsel for the petitioners is also rejected as the
same is not supported by provisions of the Act.
10. As far as the third ground is concerned, the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the 5
th
respondent has taken this
Court to relevant portion of the order passed by the revisional
authority. According to the same, the entire extent of land
belongs to four branches in which the husband of 5
th
respondent
belongs to one branch and a compromise decree was passed on
29.03.1933 in O.S.No.57 of 1926 in which one K.Veera Swamy
Naidu and his sons Babu Rao and Narayana Murthy were entitled
to undivided 1/4
th
share that aggregate Ac.9.40 cents out of total
extent of Ac.37.58 cents and accordingly, the 5
th
respondent
husband got Ac.9.40 cents out of which in the year 2000 the
10
DR, J
W.P.No.13958 of 2024
Government has acquired an extent of Ac.1.65 cents for the
purpose of Chagalnadu Lift Irrigation Scheme. After acquisition
proceedings, a total extent of Ac.7.75 cents left with the 5
th
respondent and out of which Ac.3.00 cents stand in the name of
Kondamuri Adilakshmi who is the daughter of the revision
petitioner and the remaining land of Ac.4.78 cents have been in
possession of the revision petitioner i.e, the 5
th
respondent
herein. When a survey was conducted in the year 2016, it came
to the notice of the 5
th
respondent that she is in possession of
Ac.4.65 cents, but in revenue records it was recorded only
Ac.3.13 cents and hence she filed an application on 17.05.2017
before the 4
th
respondent herein for correction of the entries in
revenue records and issue pattadar pass book accordingly and
the same was not considered, she filed W.P.No.25568 of 2018
and the said writ petition was disposed of on 11.07.2023. As per
the orders passed by this Court, the 5
th
respondent has preferred
a revision for correction of the revenue records by showing an
extent of Ac.4.65 cents in R.S.No.115 in the name of the 5
th
respondent in place of Ac.3.13 cents as per the survey report.
Learned counsel further contended that though the 5
th
respondent
has filed a revision only for an extent of Ac.4.65 cents in R.S.
11
DR, J
W.P.No.13958 of 2024
No.115, but subsequently after the demise of the husband of the
daughter of the 5
th
respondent, she is also living with the 5
th
respondent. Accordingly, she made a request for entries in
revenue records pertaining to Ac.3.00 cents, which was in the
name of the daughter of the 5
th
respondent, also may be recorded
in her name. There is also a dispute with regard to Ac.1.26 cents
as the said land is claimed by the Endowments Department.
Considering the said request, based on the records and also the
observations in the compromise decree which was made in
O.S.No.57 of 1926 dated 29.03.1933 after deducting the land
acquired by the Government, the revisional authority rightly
directed to correct the entries for an extent of Ac.6.49 cents. In
the said circumstances, though the 5
th
respondent has claimed in
revision petition for Ac.4.65 cents that does not include the land
which was in favour of the daughter of the 5
th
respondent and
based on the subsequent events as requested by the 5
th
respondent, the revisional authority has considered and made an
order with regard to Ac.6.49 cents and the remaining extent of
Ac.1.26 cents, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 5
th
respondent has submitted that the same will be pursued before
the authorities in a different proceedings.
12
DR, J
W.P.No.13958 of 2024
11. Reply to the said contentions, the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioners has contended that though
the 5
th
respondent has relied on a decree, the said document was
not placed along with the revision petition. Further, the 5
th
respondent has sought for correction of the entries pertaining to
the land only Ac.4.65 cents. When there is no request more
specifically written amendments, the revisional authority ought not
to have directed for mutation of an extent of Ac.6.49 cents.
12. Considering the above submissions, as far as the third
ground is concerned, the 5
th
respondent has made an application
on 17.05.2017 based on the survey report for correction of entries
pertaining to the land which she is in possession for an extent of
Ac.4.65 cents. Considering the said submissions, it is clear that
as per the decree passed in O.S.No.57 of 1926, each party is
entitled to 1/4
th
share out of Ac.37.58 cents and 1/4
th
share
comes to Ac.9.40 cents and it is also not in dispute that the 5
th
respondent having 1/4
th
share comes to Ac.9.40 cents. Out of
Ac.9.40 cents, admittedly the land of Ac.1.65 cents was acquired
by the Government under land acquisition proceedings. When
that being the position, the remaining extent of Ac.7.75 cents
should be with the 5
th
respondent. Out of Ac.7.75 cents, the
13
DR, J
W.P.No.13958 of 2024
revisional authority has rightly observed that there is a claim of
the Endowments Department for an extent Ac.1.26 cents. When
that being the position, the rest of the land should be belongs to
the 5
th
respondent. Accordingly, the revisional authority has
rightly observed for mutation of the rest of the land in favour of
the revision petitioner i.e., the 5
th
respondent. Though the
petitioner‟s have claimed right over the property based on the
different sale deeds from different people, the fact remains that
the 5
th
respondent has filed the revision based on the decree and
also based on the survey report dated 04.01.2024. When that
being the position, if the petitioners have any grievance with
regard to the lands, the same should be agitated before the
competent forum by filing a separate claim petition. Hence, the
writ petition lacks merits.
13. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. In view of
dismissal of the writ petition, interim orders, if any, are also
vacated. There shall be no order as to costs.
14
DR, J
W.P.No.13958 of 2024
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall
stand closed.
_______________________
JUSTICE D.RAMESH
Date: 02.01.2026
Ivd
15
DR, J
W.P.No.13958 of 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH
WRIT PETITION No.13958 of 2024
Dated: 02.01.2026
Ivd
Legal Notes
Add a Note....