IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.24550 of 2014 BETWEEN Kamisetty Srikanth.
AND ... PETITIONER State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.
...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. N. SIVA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE (AP) The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Heard.
2. Petitioner claims that he is the owner of an extent of Ac.2.05 cents in R.S.No.482/B12 and an extent of Ac.2.05 cents in R.S.No.482/B13 of Vankayalapadu village, Edlapadu Mandal, Guntur District. Petitioner submits that he is in possession of the said lands paying taxes to the Government and that he has also been issued pattadar pass books and title deeds. Petitioner, however, alleges that when there was obstruction of his enjoyment in 2007 by one Ramisetty Srinu Babu of Narasaraopet, he filed a suit, O.S.No.420 of 2007, on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet and the suit was decreed on 20.07.2010. Petitioner alleges that the fifth respondent filed a caveat in the Court of X Additional District Judge, Narasaraopet alleging and claiming that he has purchased an extent of Ac.8.68 cents in Sy.No.482/B12 and Ac.5.56 cents in Sy.No.482/B13, which include the lands of the petitioner and anticipating that the petitioner would file a civil suit against the fifth respondent, the said caveat was filed.
3. Based on the said caveat, the petitioner apprehends that the fifth respondent would get his name mutated in the revenue record by approaching respondents 3 and 4 without notice to the petitioner and on that ground, the present writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus to declare the action of revenue authorities, respondents 3 and 4, in trying to mutate the name of the fifth respondent without notice to the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and consequently, seeks a direction in that regard.
4. Evidently, the claim of the petitioner in the present writ petition is purely based on assumption and on anticipation that he would not be given any notice, if and when any proceedings are initiated by the fifth respondent. I see no reason to entertain the writ petition on such assumption and anticipatory cause of action. However, if petitioner is so advised, it is always open for him to file objections before the revenue authorities in advance so as to notify the revenue authorities that in the event of such proceedings taken, the petitioner shall be given a notice and shall be heard before passing any orders. Instead of approaching respondents 3 and 4, as aforesaid, petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court, which, in my view, is wholly unnecessary.
The writ petition is disposed of with the liberty aforesaid.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J August 26, 2014 DSK