WP/39468/2022 of NARSIPALLI RAVI KUMAR Vs THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH on 1 April 2026

1. NARSIPALLI RAVI KUMAR, S/O JAGANNADHA NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O PEDDA STREET, THERLAM VILLAGE 85 MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT

...PETITIONER AND

1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELGAPUDI.AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

2. THE REVISIONAL AUTHORITY AND JOINT COLLECTOR, VIZIANAGARAM, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT.

3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, BOBBILI SUB-DIVISION, BOBBILI, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT

4. THE TAHSILDAR, THERLAM MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT.

5. NARSIPALLI SIMHACHALAM, S/O LATE APPALA NAIDU, AGED ABOUT

YEARS R/O. THERLAM VILLAGE

MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM 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 topleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the order passed by the 2nd respondent in Rc No. 2772/SDT-I/KRRC dated 05.11.2022 confirming the orders of the 3rd respondent vide D.Dis No. 627/2020/D dated 06.04.2021 in setting aside the online entries made in favour of the petitioner in respect of Sy No. 122/8 to an extent of Ac 0.24 cents of Therlam Village and Mandal, Vizianagaram District, and - pattadar passbook issued in favour of petitioner as arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction, 'contrary to law and consequently set aside the same and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to stay all further proceedings in pursuance of the order passed by the 2nd respondent in Re No. 2772/SDT-I/KRRC dated 05.11.2022 confirming the orders of the 3rd respondent vide DiDis No. 627/2020/D dated 06.04.2021 in setting aside the online entries made in favour of the petitioner in respect of Sy No. 122/8 to an extent of Ac 0.24 cents of Therlam Village and Mandal, Vizianagaram District and pattadar passbook issued in favour of petitioner, pending disposal of the WP. IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to grant leave to the petitioner herein/Respondent No.2 in the W.P.No.39468 of 2022 to file counter affidavit in the above Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. TADDI SOWMYA NAIDU Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following order:

Heard Ms. Taddi Sowmya Naidu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.Chandra Shekar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4.

2. The instant writ petition is filed challenging the proceedings in Rc.No.2772/SDT-I/KRRC, dated 05.11.2022, of the 2nd respondent on dismissing the revision application filed by the petitioner, against the order of the 3rd respondent cancelling the entries made by the Tahsildar in the revenue records.

3. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner and the 5th respondent had mutually exchanged their respective lands located in Sy.No.253/21 of an extent of Ac.0.25 cents and Sy.No.122/8 to an extent of Ac.0.24 cents, situated in Therlam Village. Since 2008, the petitioner and the 5th respondent have been in possession and enjoyment of the respective lands.

4. In accordance with the said exchange, the petitioner made an application to the 4th respondent for mutation of his name in the revenue records in respect of land in Sy.No.122/8 to an extent of Ac.0.24 cents of Therlam Village. Based on the said application, the 4th respondent mutated the name of the petitioner in the revenue records and also issued pattadar passbooks and title deeds.

5. Challenging the same, the 5th respondent filed an appeal before the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent allowed the appeal, observing that proceedings of the 4th respondent in approving the mutation in favour of the writ petitioner is not in accordance with the procedure laid down under the provisions of A.P. Record of Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Book Act, 1971. Being aggrieved by the said order, the instant writ petition is filed.

6. Despite the service of notice to the 5th respondent, no appearance is entered.

7. The 2nd respondent filed a counter affidavit stating that the order passed by the 2nd respondent is in accordance with law.

8. Considered the submissions. It is evident that the mutations effected by Tahsildar in revenue records in favour of the petitioner are not based on any document. The petitioner’s contention that there was an agreement for exchange of the respective lands between the petitioner and the 5th respondent is not supported by any document. In the absence of any documentary evidence, the Tahsildar acted upon the application filed by the petitioner and mutated the land in the petitioner’s name in respect of the land belonging to the 5th respondent, which is not in accordance with the procedure contemplated under Section 5 of the Act.

9. Having regard to the same, this Court is of the view that the order passed by the 2nd respondent, does not call for any interference.

10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, all pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.

______________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA Date: 02.04.2026 BSK

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA

WRIT PETITION NO: 39468 OF 2022

Date: 02.04.2026 BSK