M.Parvathi, v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh,

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.13856 OF 2018 DATED :20.04.2018 Between :

M. Parvathi W/o.Koteswar Rao, Aged about 68 yrs, Occu : Housewife, R/o.Rentlapalli Village, Sathenapalli Mandal, Guntur District.

.. Petitioner And The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep., by the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District & others.

.. Respondents This court made the following :

- 2 - THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.13856 OF 2018 ORDER :

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondents.

2.

According to the petitioner land to an extent of Ac.3.95 cents in Sy.No.89/A/1A of Pakalapadu Village Accounts, Sathenapalli Mandal, Guntur District, had fallen to his share and petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the said property. This writ petition is filed apprehending that the 5th respondent is attempting to make an application seeking correction in the revenue records and to mutate his name in the place of petitioner. In such an event grave prejudice would be caused to the petitioner. 3.

According to learned counsel having come to know that there was an attempt made by the 5th respondent, a legal notice was issued on 27.03.2018 not to entertain any such request and as no reply is given, this writ petition is filed.

4.

In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, petitioner also traces the civil litigation inter parties. However, this Court is not going into the details of inter party disputes. Suffice to note that even as seen from the averments in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, so far not even application is made by the 5th respondent before the Tahsildar praying to mutate his name.

- 3 - 5.

Thus, the Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition even before an application is moved. It cannot be said that the petitioner is remediless, even if an ex-parte decision is made by the Tahsildar, without affording due opportunity. Thus, the writ petition is mis-conceived.

6.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.

__________________ P.NAVEEN RAO,J 20th April, 2018 Rds