Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Botcha Pentam Naidu vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 24 June, 2024
Author: R Raghunandan Rao
Bench: R Raghunandan Rao
APHC010141662024 Bench
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Sr.No:-46
AT AMARAVATI [3446]
WRIT APPEAL NO: 276 of 2024
Botcha Pentam Naidu and Others ...Appellant(s)
Vs.
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...Respondent(s)
**********
KRISHNA RAO M, Advocate(s) for Appellant(s)
GP FOR REVENUE, BONU RAMA SHANKAR RAO, Advocate(s) for
Respondent(s)
CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR
SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO
DATE : 24th June, 2024.
PC:
The present writ appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent has
been preferred against the judgment and order dated 23.11.2023 passed
in W.P.No.30448 of 2023.
2. Before the writ Court, the case of the petitioners was that the
petitioners were brothers and absolute owners of the land measuring one
acre ninety seven cents situate in Burada Venkatapuram Village,
Parvathapuram Manyam District. The land in question is stated to have
fallen to the share of the petitioners from their ancestors through partition.
The petitioners also claim that they were in peaceful possession and
enjoyment of the said property. The case of the petitioners further was that
2
HCJ & RRR,J
WA_276_2024
land measuring forty five cents out of one acre ninety seven cents had not
been mutated in favour of the third petitioner and therefore, taking
advantage, on the part of the omission of the official respondents, to
mutate the name of the third petitioner in the revenue records, the private
respondents in the writ petition were trying to interfere with the enjoyment
of the rights of the third petitioner over the subject property.
3. The case of the petitioners further was that representations dated
10.04.2023, 03.04.2023 and 27.03.2023 were filed through spandana
before the respondent authorities seeking to mutate the name of the third
petitioner in respect of his subject property, but no action had been taken
thereupon. It was in those circumstances that the petitioners had sought a
writ of mandamus to the fourth respondent in the writ petition to take
immediate necessary steps for conducting and completion of the survey
and to mutate an extent of forty five cents in survey No.255/12 in the name
of the third petitioner pursuant to the representations of the petitioners
submitted in the spandana programme. In that background the writ petition
was disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities to consider
the representations filed by the petitioners and learned single Judge
issued further directions to mutate the name of the third petitioner in
respect of his property out of the subject property within three weeks.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants, Ms. N. V. Architha, states that
the order impugned came to be passed without hearing the appellants who
3
HCJ & RRR,J
WA_276_2024
were private respondent Nos.5 to 8 in the writ petition. In any case, it is
stated that while the representations could be considered, yet the direction
to mutate the name of the third petitioner in respect of the property
measuring forty five cents would severely prejudice the rights of the
appellants herein inasmuch as, according to the learned counsel, the
appellants have a right to own and possess the said property measuring
forty five cents.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
6. It is not denied by learned counsel for the respondents that the writ
petition was disposed of at the admission stage itself, without issuing any
notice to the appellants herein, who are respondents in the writ petition. In
our opinion, this would have been a good case for remand, however, we
feel that the interest of justice would be best served if the judgment and
order is modified to the extent that the respondents would consider the
representations filed by the petitioners dated 10.04.2023, 03.04.2023 and
27.03.2023 in the first instance. It is only after the representations have
been considered and the petitioners right over the property measuring forty
five cents is established, that the official respondents will proceed to
mutate the name of the third petitioner in regard to the said property, after
hearing the appellants in the matter, who will have a right to put forth their
objections before the concerned authorities.
4
HCJ & RRR,J
WA_276_2024
7. The present writ appeal is accordingly disposed of. No order as to
costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ.
R RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.
SSN
