The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.24552 of 2010 Date: 01-10-2010 Between: Bitragunta Sumathi ..... Petitioner AND The District Collector, SPSR, Nellore District and 3 others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.G.Venkateswarlu Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3: AGP for Revenue Counsel for respondent No.4: --- Order: In this Writ Petition, the petitioner sought for a Mandamus to direct respondent Nos.2 and 3 not to make any entries in the record of rights in respect of land admeasuring Ac.4-62 cents in Survey Nos.319/1 and 319/2 of Kothapalli Kounugunta Village, Dagadarthi Mandal, SPSR Nellore District, without issuing any notice to her. The pleadings contained in the Writ Petition show that a civil dispute regarding the land in question is pending between the petitioner and respondent No.4. According to the petitioner, respondent No.4 has made an application for amendment of entries in respect of the said land in the record of rights in the year 2005 to respondent No.3. The petitioner has expressed an apprehension that, respondent No.4 being an influential person, respondent No.3 may consider her application and amend the entries in the record of rights, without issuing notice to the petitioner. I have heard Sri G.Venkateswarlu, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and perused the record. The petitioner has not disclosed specific cause of action for maintaining this Writ Petition at this stage. Though the application of respondent No.4 is pending since the year 2005, I do not find any reason for the petitioner to file the present Writ Petition at this length of time on mere apprehension that respondent No.3 may amend the record of rights without issuing notice to her. It is needless to observe that under Section 5 (3) of the Andhra Pradesh Record of Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act’), it is incumbent upon the recording authority i.e., respondent No.3 herein to issue a notice in writing to all the persons, who are interested or affected by the amendment, before carrying out any amendment in the record of rights. In the face of this mandatory statutory provision, I do not find any basis in the petitioner’s apprehension that the entries in the record of rights may be amended by respondent No.3 in favour of respondent No.4, without issuing notice to her. Even if such an act is committed by respondent No.3, the petitioner can avail the remedy of appeal under Section 5 (5) of the Act. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.31431 of 2010, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous. ___________________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 1st October, 2010 lur