(Prayer: 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 WRIT OF MANDAMUS or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the action of the 4th respondent in mutating the names of Respondent Nos.6 to 8 in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.0.98 cents (Sy.No.256). Ac.0.42 cents (Sy.No.257/1). Ac.0.10 cents (Sy.No.258) and Ac.1.00 cents (Sy.No.424-5), total admeasuring Ac.2.50 cents situated in Chemmu Miah Peta Village, Kadapa Mandal, YSR Kadapa District, contrary to the order of remand dated 10.05.2017 in Ref.No.H/422/2016 passed by the 3rd respondent cancelling the mutation of their vendor/5th respondent, without giving any notice/opportunity to the petitioner, as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and contrary to the procedure contemplated under the provisions of A.P. R.O.R. Act, 1971 read with the Rules made there under and also violative of Articles 14 and 300A of Constitution of India, and pass such other order or orders in the interests of justice and consequently, command the 4th respondent to set aside the mutation made in favour of the unofficial respondents in respect of the subject land forthwith, in the interest of justice.)

1. The present Writ Petition has been filed challenging the action of the respondent No.4 – Tahsildar in mutating the names of the unofficial respondent Nos.6 to 8 in respect of land admeasuring Ac.0.98 cents in Sy.No.256, Ac.0.42 cents in Sy.No.257/1, Ac.0.10 cents in Sy.No.258 and Ac.1.00 cents in Sy.No.424-5, total admeasuring Ac.2.50 cents, situated in Chemmu Miah Peta Village, Kadapa Mandal, YSR Kadapa District, as it is contrary to the order dated 10.05.2017 in Ref.No.H/422/2016 of respondent No.3, and as it is also contrary to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for short, ‘the Act’) read with the Rules made thereunder and also violative of Articles 14 and 300A of the Constitution of India.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the land admeasuring Acs.1.95 cents in Sy.No.256, Ac.0.85 cents in Sy.No.257/1, Ac.0.19 cents in Sy.No.258 and Acs.2.00 cents in Sy.No.424-5, total admeasuring Acs.5.00 cents, situated in Chemmu Miah Peta Village, Kadapa Mandal, is the ancestral property of the petitioner and his elder brother late Vempalle Jayarami Reddy and the brother of the writ petitioner is used to manage the subject land along with other ancestral properties and the names of the petitioner and his brother were mutated in the revenue records separately and equally, vide Khata Nos.368 and 369 and the brother of the petitioner owned and held equal shares and wife of Vempalle Jayarami Reddy predeceased his brother and his brother bequeathed his half share by executing an unregistered Will dated 20.12.2008 and he died on 27.12.2008. As such, the half share of his brother was also fell to his share and the same was mutated in the name of the writ petitioner and the writ petitioner has possessed the entire land of Acs.5.00 cents.

3. Aggrieved by the action of the respondent No.4 in mutating the name of respondent No.5 in the revenue records, an appeal has been filed before the respondent No.3 – Revenue Divisional Officer, who allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the Tahsildar and directed the Tahsildar to conduct de novo enquiry, vide order dated 10.05.2017.

4. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner herein preferred a revision under Section 9 of the Act before the respondent No.2 – Joint Collector and no interim orders were passed by the respondent No.2. Taking advantage of the same, the respondent No.5 suppressing the order of the respondent No.3, made alienations to respondent Nos.6 to 8 and the respondent Nos.6 to 8 have applied for mutation of their names in the revenue records in respect of the subject land and the respondent No.4 has mutated the names of the respondent Nos.6 to 8 without giving any notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and it is contrary to the orders of the respondent No.3 cancelling the mutation of their vendor-respondent No.5.

5. Therefore, the present Writ Petition is filed to cancel the mutation of names of the respondent Nos.6 to 8 on the ground that the mutation is contrary to the direction of the respondent No.3 and without issuing any notice under Rule 9(1)(c)(ii) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Rules, 1989, to the petitioner herein and contrary to the Full Bench judgment of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Chinnam Pandurangam Vs. Mandal Revenue Officer, Serilingampally Mandal reported in 2007(6) ALD 248 = AIR 2008 AP 15 FB.

6. This Court, vide order dated 21.03.2023, directed the respondents that status quo be maintained with respect to the entries in the revenue records in respect of the subject land in an extent of Ac.0.98 cents in Sy.No.256, Ac.0.42 cents in Sy.No.257/1, Ac.0.10 cents in Sy.No.258 and Ac.1.00 cents in Sy.No.424-5, total admeasuring Ac.2.50 cents, situated in Chemmu Miah Peta Village, Kadapa Mandal, YSR Kadapa District belonging to the brother of the writ petitioner.

7. Respondent Nos.6 to 8 filed their counter and vacate petition, vide I.A.No.2 of 2023 and the respondent Nos.6 to 8 have denied all the averments made in the writ affidavit and stated that Vempalle Jayarami Reddy has executed a Will dated 19.08.2006 in favour of Smt. Bhagya Lakshmi and the same is registered as Doc.No.115 of 2006 in the Sub- Registrar Office, Kadapa, and it is undeniable fact and it is not the case of the petitioner that the registered Will deed was not cancelled and the same had come into effect soon after the demise of late Vempalle Jayarami Reddy and thereafter she executed a registered settlement deed in favour of the respondent No.5 herein and whose named was mutated in the revenue records on 11.03.2016 and thereafter the respondent No.5 has sold the properties to respondent Nos.6 to 8 and it is admitted that the respondent No.3 – Revenue Divisional Officer has remanded the matter to respondent No.4 – Tahsildar to conduct de novo enquiry and assailing the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, petitioner filed a revision before the respondent No.2 – Joint Collector and no interim orders are passed in revision, and only to protract the litigation, the respondent No.5 has sold the property vide registered sale deed dated 10.01.2023 and the respondent Nos.6 to 8 have applied for mutation of their names in the revenue records in respect of the subject land. After following the procedure, the respondent No.4 has mutated the names of the respondent Nos.6 to 8 and there is no illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the official respondents. Hence, prays to vacate the interim order granted on 21.03.2023 and consequently prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition.

8. Heard Sri P.Rajasekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Naidu Siva Rama Krishna, learned counsel for the unofficial respondent Nos.6 to 8 and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for official respondent Nos.1 to 4.

9. The undisputed facts are that the property to an extent of Acs.2.50 cents belongs to the brother of the writ petitioner Vempalle Jayarami Reddy and it is the case of the writ petitioner herein that his brother executed an unregistered Will in favour of the petitioner herein and it is the case of the unofficial respondents that Vempalle Jayarami Reddy has executed a registered gift deed in the name of Smt. Bhagya Lakshmi and the said Bhagya Lakshmi in turn executed a gift settlement deed in favour of her husband respondent No.5 herein and the respondent No.5 herein has sold the property to the respondent Nos.6 to 8 herein. On careful perusal of the averments made in the writ affidavit and the counter affidavit, admittedly, there is a dispute relating to the Will and it has to be decided by a competent Civil Court and the revenue authorities have no jurisdiction to decide the title dispute between the parties in respect of the subject property in the Writ Petition. If there is any dispute regarding the mutation, the dispute has to be enlisted in the disputed cases and then such disputes are to be decided by the competent Civil Court.

10. It is orally argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent Nos.6 to 8 are influencing the police to settle the matter, it was denied by the learned counsel for the unofficial respondent Nos.6 to 8. If the alleged fact is true, the police were not arrayed as party respondents to the Writ Petition. Setting apart both contentions, the police cannot enter into the civil dispute.

11. On the attending facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the view that there is a civil dispute between the petitioner and the unofficial respondent Nos.6 to 8. Both the petitioner and the unofficial respondents are claiming the property of Vempalle Jayarami Reddy basing on the Will executed by late Vempalle Jayarami Reddy. Therefore, this Court of the opinion that it is better to direct the official respondents, more particularly, the respondent No.4 – Tahsildar to place the subject land in the disputed register.

12. Therefore, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the respondent No.4 to place the subject land of an extent of Ac.0.98 cents in Sy.No.256, Ac.0.42 cents in Sy.No.257/1, Ac.0.10 cents in Sy.No.258 and Ac.1.00 cents in Sy.No.424-5, total admeasuring Ac.2.50 cents, situated in Chemmu Miah Peta Village, Kadapa Mandal, YSR Kadapa District, in the disputed register. There shall be no order as to costs.

                  As a sequel thereto, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.