Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
K Padmavathi vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 28 July, 2025
APHC010290242025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3331]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JULY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
WRIT PETITION NO: 18232/2025
Between:
1. K PADMAVATHI, W/O.LATE K.YERRISWAMY, AGED ABOUT 60
YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O.HAVALIGI VILLAGE,
VIDAPANAKAL MANDAL, ANANTAPURAM DISTRICT.
2. K.SUJATHA, , W/O.LATE SARABANNA, AGED ABOUT 40
YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, VAJRAKARUR VILLAGE AND
MANDAL, ANANTAPURAM DISTRICT.
3. K.DEVAIAH,, S/O.LATE KAMMARA VEERABHADRAIAH, AGED
ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE,
R/O.P.NARAYANAPURAMU VILLAGE, KUDERU MANDAL,
ANANTAPURAM DISTRICT, A.P.
4. K.NAGARAJU,, S/O.LATE KAMMARA VEERABHADRAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE,
R/O.P.NARAYANAPURAM VILLAGE, KUDEFU MANDAL
ANANTAPURAM DISTRICT, A.P.
5. K.NAGARAJU,, S/O.LATE KAMMARI CHINNA BANDEPPU,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE,
R/O.MALKAPURAM VILLAGE, SOMULAPURAM TALUK
RAICHUR DISTRICT, KARNATAKA STATE.
6. K.RATNAMMA, W/O.K.SIVA SHANKARACHARI
SIVASHANKARAPPA ACHARL, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS OCC
AGRICULTURE, R/O.HAVALIGI VILLAGE, VIDAPANAKAL
MANDAL, ANANTAPURAM DISTRICT.
Page 2 of 8
7. K.NAGAMUNL,, S/O.LATE K.NAGENDRA, AGED ABOUT 43
YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O.RAKETIA VILLAGE,
URAVAKONDA MANDAL ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT, A.P.
8. K.NAGARUCFNAMMA,, W/O.LATE DEVA SUDHACHARI AGED
ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O.RAKETIA
VILLAGE, URAVAKONDA MANDAL ANANTAPURAM DISTRICT.
9. K.RATNAMMA,, W/O.LATE K.BANDAIAH @ BANDAPPA AGED
ABOUT 68 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE R/O.HAVAFIGI
VILLAGE, VIDAPANAKAL MANDAL,ANANTAPURAM DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI - 522238.
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ANANTAPURAM DISTRICT AT
ANANHAPURAM.
3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ANANTAPURAM
DIVISION, ANANTAPURAM DISTRICT.
4. THE TAHASILDAR, VIDAPANAKAL MANDAL, ANANTAPURAM
DISTRICT.
5. THE SUB REGISTRAR SRO, STAMPS AND REGISTRATION
DEPARTMENT, URAVAKONDA, ANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.
6. SMT NETTURU PARVATHAMMA MEENAKSHAMMA,
W/O.N.VEERABHADRAPPA, AGE MAJOR, R/O.NANDI HALLI
VILLAGE, GANGAVATHI TALUK RAICHUR DISTRICT,
KARNATAKA STATE.
7. SRI R VEERABHADRA REDDY, S/O.BANDAIAH, AGE MAJOR,
R/O.B.C COLONY, HAVALIGI VILLAGE AND POST
VIDAIAANAKAL MANDGI, ANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT
8. K CHITTEMMA, W/O LAKSHMANARYANA AGE MAJOR,
R/O.HAVALIGI VILLAGE AND POST VIDAPANAKAL MANDAL,
ANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT'
Page 3 of 8
9. SRI PADAPPA GARI GANGADHAR, S/O.KURUBA PDDAPPA
AGE MAJOR, R/O.NEAR MALLAMMA KOTA, B.C COLONY'
HAVALIGI VILLAGE AND POST, VIDAPANAKAL MANDAL
ANANTHAPURAM DISTRIC
...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, order or direction, particularly one in the
nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in
permitting the registration of documents and incorporation of entries in
revenue records submitted by the unofficial respondents in respect of
the agricultural lands situated at Havaligi Village, Vidapanakal Mandal,
Anantapuram District, in the following survey numbers Sy.No.370/C -
Ac. 5.70 cents, Sy. No. 370/D - Ac.5.68 cents, Sy. No. 371/1 - Ac.
11.71cents, Sy. No. 582/A - Ac. 1.61 cents, Sy. No. 583/A - Ac. 7.92
cents, Sy. No. 247/B - Ac. 1.20 cents, and Sy. No. 247/C - Ac. 1.25
cents, despite the cancellation of the Registered Gift Deed No.
1225/1993 dated 04.08.1993, which pertained to Gift Deed Document
No. 586 of 1957 is illegal, arbitrary, and violative of the principles of
natural justice and consequently direct the official respondents not to
allow the documents for registration in respect of the subject land and
pass such
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 to direct registration as well as incorporation of entries In
revenue records In respect of the agricultural lands situated at Havaligi
Village, Vidapanakal Mandal, Anantapuram District, in the following
survey numbers: Sy. No. 370/C - Ac. 5.70 cents, Sy. No. 370/D - Ac.
5.68 cents, Sy. No. 371/1 - Ac. 11.71cents, Sy. No. 582/A-Ac. 1.61 cents,
Sy. No. 583/A - Ac. 7.92 cents, Sy. No. 247/B - Ac. 1.20 cents, and Sy.
No! 247/C - Ac. 1.25 cents of the petitioners, pending disposal of the
above writ petition and pass such
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
Page 4 of 8
1. K BHIMANNA
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR REVENUE
The Court made the following:
ORDER
Heard Sri K.Bhimanna, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri G.Divya Theja, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps & Registration for the respondents.
2. Notice in respect of the respondents 6 to 9 is dispensed with, since no adverse order is passed affecting their rights and interests.
3. The above writ petition has been filed to declare the action of respondents in permitting the registration of documents and incorporation of entries in revenue records submitted by the unofficial respondents in respect of the agricultural lands of an extent of Ac.5.70 cents in Sy.No.370/C; Ac.5.69 cents in Sy.No.370/D; Ac.11.71 cents in Sy.No.371/1; Ac.1.61 cents in Sy.No.582/A; Ac.7.92 cents in Sy.No.583/A; Ac.1.20 cents in Sy.No.247/B and Ac.1.25 cents in Sy.No.247/C situated at Havaligi Village, Vidapanakal Mandal, Anantapuram District, despite the cancellation deed document No.1225 of 1993, dated 04.08.1993, in respect of Gift deed document No.586 of 1957, as illegal arbitrary.
4. One K.Sarabanna was the absolute owner of the aforementioned lands, and they are his ancestral properties. K.Eramma and K.Sarabanna are wife and husband, and they have no issues. K.Sarabanna died intestate in the year 1954, leaving behind him his wife, Page 5 of 8 K.Eramma. The said K.Eramma executed a gift deed in favour of Sivappa, S/o Veerabhadrappa, vide document No.586 of 1957, with a condition that the latter has to look after the welfare of the executants. K.Veeramma filed suit O.S.No.113 of 1989 on the file of Munsif Court, Uravakonda, for cancellation of the gift deed dated 01.05.1957, document No.586 of 1957. The said suit was dismissed on the grounds of limitation by judgment and decree dated 07.10.1991. Later, the donor revoked the said gift deed vide document No.1225 of 1993 and later died intestate on 27.04.1999. The petitioners, heirs of K.Sarabanna, husband of K.Veeramma, came into possession of the subject lands. A registered partition deed was executed vide document No.13775 of 2018 dated 10.10.2018. The 6th respondent, daughter of Sivappa, based on the gift deed dated 01.05.1957, executed unregistered sale deeds in favour of respondents 7 to 9. Neither the name of Sivappa nor the names of Veerabhadrappa and the 6th respondent are mutated in the record of rights. Notice was issued to the registering authority not to entertain the document. However, the registering authority is registering the documents, and hence, the above writ petition has been filed.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued, reiterating the contentions as per the averments in the writ affidavit.
6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader, on instructions, would submit that the writ petition filed by the petitioners is not maintainable vis- à-vis the reliefs sought. He would also submit that unless and until a restraint order is passed by the competent civil Court or the properties are included in the list of prohibited properties under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 or any other restraint order from the competent authority, the registering authority needs to entertain the document. The Page 6 of 8 petitioners, without exhausting the remedies before the appropriate forum, filed the writ petition.
7. A perusal of the averments in the affidavit, as well as contentions of learned counsel for the petitioners, would disclose that the 6th respondent, without having any title, is alienating certain properties in favour of respondents 7 to 9. Whether the 6th respondent owns the aforementioned properties or not, being a disputed question of fact, in the considered opinion of this Court, may not be amenable to judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
8. As rightly pointed out by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, the petitioners should have invoked the private law remedy by approaching the competent Civil Court to redress their grievance. Unless and until a restraint order is passed by the Civil Court regarding alienation, or the properties are included in the list of prohibited properties under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908, normally, the registering authority cannot refuse to receive and process the documents presented, of course, subject to fulfillment of the provisions of Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and the Registration Act, 1908.
9. In Paragraph 2 of the affidavit, the name of the original owner is mentioned as K.Eramma, W/o Sarabanna. In Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the affidavit, the name of the owner is mentioned as K.Veeramma. The discrepancy was not explained by the learned counsel.
10. It is settled law that to invoke the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, one must satisfy infringement of right, be it legal or statutory, and a corresponding legal obligation on the part of the Page 7 of 8 respondent. Thus, the existence of legal rights is a sine qua non for invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
11. In State of U.P. and others Vs. Harish Chandra and others1, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows:
"10. ... Under the Constitution, a Mandamus can be issued by the court when the applicant establishes that he has a legal right to the performance of legal duty by the party against whom the mandamus is sought and the said right was subsisting on the date of the petition."
12. In Union of India Vs. S.B. Vohra 2 , the Hon'ble Apex Court considered a similar issue and held that for issuing a Writ of Mandamus in favour of a person, the person claiming must establish his legal right in himself. Then only a Writ of Mandamus could be issued against a person, who has a legal duty to perform, but has failed and/or neglected to do so.
13. In Oriental Bank of Commerce Vs. Sunder Lal Jain 3 , the Supreme Court emphasized the necessity to establish the existence of legal right and its infringement for the grant of Writ of Mandamus referred the principles stated in the Law of Extraordinary Legal Remedies by F.G. Ferris and F.G. Ferris, Jr.:
14. In Mani Subrat Jain Vs. State of Haryana 4 , while considering scope of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as follows:
1(1996) 9 SCC 309 2 (2004) 2 SCC 150 3 (2008) 2 SCC 280 4 AIR 1977 SC 276 Page 8 of 8 "9. ... It is elementary though it is to be restated that no one can ask for a Mandamus without a legal right there must be a judicially enforceable right as well as a legally protected right before one suffering a legal grievance can ask for a mandamus. A person can be said to be aggrieved only when a person is denied a legal right by someone who has a legal duty to do something or to abstain from doing something. (See Halsbury's Laws of England 4th Ed.
Vol I, paragraph 122); State of Haryana Vs. Subash Chander, AIR 1973 SC 2216; Jasbhai Motibhai Desai Vs. Roshan, Kumar Haji Bashir Ahmed, AIR 1976 SC 578) and Ferris Extraordinary Legal Remedies paragraph 198."
15. Given the above jurisprudential jurimetrics, since the petitioners failed to satisfy the Court regarding infringement of their right and corresponding legal obligation on the part of the respondent authorities, this Court does not find any merit in this writ petition and thus the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
16. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is Dismissed. No order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI PVD