IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO:25058 of 2008 Between: Neelam Sheshamma W/o. Kalebu R/o. Bhimavaram, Inkollu Mandal, Prakasam District. ..... PETITIONER AND The Tahsildar, Srungavarapukota Mandal, Vijayanagaram District. .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.VASANTHA RAYUDU Counsel for the Respondents:AGP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondent in not passing order on the petitioner’s application for mutation of her name in the pattadar passbooks in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.1.76 cents in Survey No.7 of Mushidikpally Village, Srungavarapukota Mandal, Vizianagaram District, as arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner sought for a consequential direction to the respondent to issue pattadar passbook and title deeds in her favour. In her affidavit, the petitioner claimed that her son, by name, Neelam Babu Rao, who purchased the above- mentioned land through sale deed, dated 30.12.2004, was recognized as the owner of the property, his name was mutated in the revenue records and pattadar passbook and title deeds were issued to him by the then Tahsildar and the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer vide patta No.251 and title deed No.B-422614 and that her son went to Taiwan and died in a road accident on 05.03.2008. The petitioner averred that she made application, dated 27.05.2008 to the respondent and that as he failed to take any action on the same, she approached the District Collector, Vizianagaram, through application, dated 14.07.2008 requesting him to redress her grievance. She stated that as no action was taken by the District Collector, Vizianagaram too, she got legal notice, dated 04.08.2008 issued to the respondent. Feeling aggrieved by the inaction of the respondent, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. Under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act’), whenever an application is made for alteration of revenue record, the Tahsildar is obliged to hold an enquiry and pass an order under Section 5(3) of the said Act. If the petitioner made such an application, it is not proper for the respondent not to pass appropriate order either altering the record or refusing to alter the record. In the latter event, he shall pass an order by recording reasons and if the petitioner is aggrieved by such an order, she is entitled to ﬁle an appeal under Section 5(5) of the Act. Failure of the respondent in passing appropriate order on the petitioner’s purported application for alteration of revenue record is contrary to the scheme underlying the Act. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondent to consider the application of the petitioner said to have been submitted to him for correction of entries in the Record of Rights and issue of pattadar passbooks and title deeds, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP.No.32700 of 2008 ﬁled by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 15th NOVEMBER, 2008. kvni