IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos: 4825 and 4829 of 2009 WRIT PETITION NO : 4825 of 2009 Between: K.Yugandhar Reddy S/o.K.Ramakrishna Reddy R/o.H.No.4-32-1167/1,Tulasi Nagar,Allwyn Colony Phase- II,Kukatpally,Hyderabad ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Kurnool 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kurnool 3 The Tahasildar,Nandikotkur Mandal, Kurnool District 4 K.Krishnavenamma W/o.K.Jagan Mohan Reddy R/o.H.No.79/89 Krishna nagar,Kurnool Kurnool District .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ order or orders more particularly in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of Respondent No.3 in entering the names of Respondents No.4 in the revenue records (Adangal Pahani) with out issuing the notice to the petitioner pertaining to the agricultural land for an extent of Ac.5.24 which are Ac.0.32 cents in S.No.210 Ac.4.26 cents in S.No.307/2 and Ac.0.66 cents in S.No.311/2 situated in 10 Bollavaram village, nandikotkur Mandal, Kurnool District as illegal, arbitrary, against the principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the action of respondent No.3 dated 6.9.2008 entering the name of Respondent No.4 in revenue records (Adangal/Pahani) and restore the name of the petitioner in revenue records pertaining to the agricultural land for an extent of Ac.5.24 which are Ac.0.32, cents inS.No.210 Ac.4.26 cents inS.No.307/2 and Ac.0.66 cents in S.No.311/2 situated in Bollavaram village, Nandikotkur Mandal Kurnool District. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.S.MURTHY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE WRIT PETITION NO : 4829 of 2009 Between: K. Nageswar Reddy S/o.K.Ramakrishna Reddy R/o.H.No.4-32-1167/1,Tulasi Nagar,Allwyn Colony Phase- II,Kukatpally,Hyderabad ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Kurnool 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kurnool 3 The Tahasildar,Nandikotkur Mandal, Kurnool District 4 K.Krishnavenamma W/o.K.Jagan Mohan Reddy R/o.H.No.79/89 Krishna nagar,Kurnool Kurnool District .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ order or orders more particularly in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of Respondent No.3 in entering the names of Respondents No.4 in the revenue records (Adangal Pahani) with out issuing the notice to the petitioner pertaining to the agricultural land for an extent of Ac.0.96 cents in S.No. 210 and Ac 3.77 cents in S.No. 307/2 situated in 10 Bollavaram village, Nandikotkur Mandal, Kurnool District as illegal, arbitrary, against the principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the action of respondent No.3 dated 6.9.2008 entering the name of Respondent No.4 in revenue records (Adangal/Pahani) and restore the name of the petitioner in revenue records pertaining to the agricultural land for an of Ac 0.96 cents inS.No. 210 and Ac 3.77 cents in S.No. 307/2 situated in 10 Bollavaram Village, Nandikotkur Mandal, Kurnool District. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.S.MURTHY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following ORDER: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition Nos.4825 and 4829 of 2009 COMMON ORDER: The petitioners in these two writ petitions are brothers. Their names are shown as owners and possessors in respect of land in Survey Nos.210, 307/2 and 311/2 admeasuring Ac.0.32 cents, Acs.4.26 cents and Ac.0.66 cents respectively of 10 Bollavaram Village, Nandikotkur Mandal, Kurnool District in the Pahanies for the Fasli 1418. However, for the subsequent years, that of the fourth respondent by name, K.Krishnavenamma, was entered in respect of substantial extent of land, on the basis of succession. The petitioners feel aggrieved by the same. They contend that the Tahsildar, Nandikotkur Mandal, the third respondent herein, effected the entries, without issuing notice to them. Heard Sri K.S.Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and Sri J.Kumar Babu, learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent. In the ordinary course, the petitioners have to avail the remedy under Section 5(5) of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971, if they feel aggrieved by the alternation of entries in the revenue records. However, verification of the record discloses that the petitioners were not put on notice, before the name of the fourth respondent was entered in respect of substantial part of the land. It is settled principle of law that the Recording Authority has to issue notice to the affected parties, before making or altering the entries in the revenue records. On this ground alone, the writ petitions are allowed and the entries made in favour of the fourth respondent in the Adangal Pahani for the Fasli 1418, in respect of land in Survey Nos.210, 307/2 and 311/2 of 10 Bollavaram Village, Nandikotkur Mandal, Kurnool District, are set aside. The Tahsildar, Nandikotkur Mandal, is directed to take up the exercise afresh, after issuing notice to the petitioners. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L.Narasimha Reddy, J Dt.27.04.2009 VGB