Allu Suryanarayana, v. State Of Andhra Pradesh,

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.35637 OF 2017 Dated:26.10.2017 Between:

Allu Suryanarayana, S/o. Peda Venkatappa, Aged about 55 years, Occ: Cultivation, R/o. Narayanapalli Village, Putluru Mandal, Now residing at Drivers Colony, Near Indian Gas, Krishnapuram Road, Tadipatri Town, Anantapur District .. Petitioner And The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Amaravathi, Andhra Pradesh and others .. Respondents The Court made the following:

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.35637 OF 2017 ORDER:

Heard.

2.

Petitioner claims to be the owner and possessor of lands admeasuring Acs.2.58 cents, Ac.0.05 cents and Ac.1.09 cents in Survey Nos.1991, 1992 and 1993 respectively of Sengagalaguduru Village, Putluru Mandal, Anantapur District. According to petitioner, pattadar passbook and title deeds were issued in his favour. While so, in 1-B Register, the name of the petitioner is deleted and in the place of the petitioner, the name of Smt. Allu Venkata Laxmamma is reflected. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner submitted an application. On consideration of the said application, the Tahsildar, Putluru Mandal, Anantapur District, vide his endorsement dated 06.09.2017 informed the petitioner that his request to re-enter his name in the web land register cannot be accepted at this stage and advised the petitioner to avail appropriate civil law remedy. This Writ Petition is filed seeking a declaration that deleting the name of the petitioner in the web land register as illegal.

3.

The facts on record as briefly noted above would disclose that by now the name of the petitioner was deleted and the name of the unofficial respondent is entered in the online register. The request made for rectification of the said entry is refused and to that extent, by way of endorsement the petitioner was informed. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the said decision of the Tahsildar,

he can avail the remedy of appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Anantapur District, or assail the said order. Neither the petitioner has availed the remedy of appeal nor challenged the decision communicated to him vide endorsement dated 06.09.2017.

4.

Since the Tahsildar has already made endorsement and a decision is communicated to the petitioner, no relief as sought for by the petitioner can be granted.

5.

The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed leaving it open to the petitioner to work out his remedies as available in law. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the Writ Petition shall stand closed.

____________________ P. NAVEEN RAO, J Date:26.10.2017 KH