IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 15584 of 2005 Between: Etti Sriramulu Reddy S/o.Late Etti Yellappa Reddy Damineedu Village, Tirupathi Rural Mandal Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector Chittoor. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer Tirupathi, Chittoor District. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Tirupathi Rural Mandal, Tirupathi, .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.VENKATARAMANA REDDY FOR MR.G.DASARADHA RAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not mutating the name of the petitioner in respect of lands in Survey Nos.172/1, 172/2, 175/13, 196/5, 47/2, 47/5, 48/2 and 52/1 of Damineedu Village, Tirupathi Rural Mandal, Chittoor District, as illegal and arbitrary. Heard Sri M.Venkata Ramana Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and perused the record. Though several facts are pleaded in the writ petition, since most of the facts are admitted, they need not be specifically traversed for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition. It is the admitted case of the parties that the lands mentioned in the writ petition comprised in the above survey numbers are covered by order, dated 25.08.1969 of the Settlement Officer, Nellore in S.R.No.1/15(1)/69 CTR wherein the claim of four (4) persons, namely, T.Tiruvenkatachari, M.S.Pattammal, Neeli Subramanyam Chetty and Yetti Yellappa Reddy, was accepted for grant of ryotwari pattas under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates Abolition Act, 1948. Admittedly, the petitioner is the son of Yetti Yellappa Reddy and according to him, in the partition took place among the above mentioned four (4) persons including the father of the petitioner, the properties in respect of which the petitioner is seeking mutation fell to the share of his father. The grievance of the petitioner is that though the above mentioned order of the Settlement Officer, Nellore has become final with the dismissal of A.S.No.33 of 1974 on 22.02.1978, by the appellate authority, so far the said order has not been implemented by mutating the name of the petitioner in the revenue records. The learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to proceedings, dated 17.01.1979 issued by the District Collector, Chittoor wherein he directed the Tahsildar, Chandragiri to implement the above mentioned order of the Settlement Officer, Nellore by making necessary entries in the revenue records of Damineedu Village and report compliance. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.3, it is inter alia averred that no formal application has been made by the petitioner for mutation of his name in the revenue records and that if necessary application is made along with material in support of his claim that the property fell to his share in the partition, he will make necessary entries in the revenue records. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner did in fact, make such an application, no evidence is placed before the Court to show that he filed such an application though the learned counsel invited my attention to a copy of purported application filed by the original landholders including the father of the petitioner in the year 1981. Since the petitioner seeks mutation of his name in the revenue records, he ought to have filed an application for that purpose. In the light of the stand taken by the respondents that as and when the petitioner files an application for mutation, the same will be considered, the writ petition is disposed of by permitting the petitioner to make an application for mutation of his name in the revenue records along with necessary material showing his interest in the land in question before the Tahsildar, Tirupathi Rural Mandal, Chittoor District and within four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of such an application along with necessary material, the Tahsildar shall take appropriate action after giving notice to the petitioner. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, interim order, dated 19.07.2005 is vacated, WPMP.No.19795 of 2005 is dismissed and WVMP.No.1077 of 2006 is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NARAGJUNA REDDY, J 26th June, 2008. Note: issue c.c. in one week. B/o kvni