ORDER : 1. One Boya Dealer Ayyanna filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to declare the action of respondent No.4 in not mutating the name of the petitioner in the ROR and adangal in respect of agricultural land purchased by him under registered sale deed bearing document No.45/2012 dated 04.01.2012 and also as per the final orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.23691 of 2014 dated 01.09.2014 as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct respondent No.4 to mutate the name of the petitioner in ROR and adangals in respect of land in an extent of Ac.01.30 cents in Sy.No.152 situated in S.Lingamdinne Village, Gonegandla Mandal, Kurnool District by deleting the names of the respondent Nos.5 and 6 from the concerned records. 2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he purchased agricultural land admeasuring Ac.1.30 cents in Sy.No.152 situated in S.Lingamdinne Village, Gonegandla Mandal, Kurnool District from the original owner i.e. Sri Pinjari Akbar Basha, s/o Nadipi Dastagiri, after verifying the same from the sub-registrar’s office. But, respondent No.4 did not issue Pattadar passbook, title deed and did not make entry in ROR records and Adangals despite application filed by the petitioner and directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.23961 of 2014. In W.P.No.23961 of 2014, this Court issued the following direction: “The writ petition is therefore, disposed of directing 4th respondent to consider the petitioner’s aforesaid request for grant of pattadar passbook and title deed and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs.” 3. Since, respondent No.4 has not implemented the direction issued by this Court, the petitioner filed C.C.(SR) No.520 of 2015 with a petition C.A.No.97 of 2015 to grant leave to implead G.Nagabhushan Reddy, Village Revenue Officer, and it is pending as on today. 4. In the meanwhile, both the Tahsildar and Village Revenue Officer were transferred, new officers are posted as Tahsildar and Village Revenue Officer. Though the contempt is pending against the Tahsildar and Village Revenue Officer, they did not take any steps to mutate the name of the petitioner in ROR and adangals. 4. In the meanwhile, both the Tahsildar and Village Revenue Officer were transferred, new officers are posted as Tahsildar and Village Revenue Officer. Though the contempt is pending against the Tahsildar and Village Revenue Officer, they did not take any steps to mutate the name of the petitioner in ROR and adangals. On the other hand, names of respondent Nos.5 and 6 were already mutated as if they are in possession and enjoyment of the property, noted the names of respondent Nos.5 and 6 in column Nos.12 and 13 though they are not legally entitled. 5. Though the petitioner made several requests to respondent No.4 to pass appropriate order mutating the name of the petitioner in the revenue records, he did not consider the request of the petitioner. Later, the petitioner approached respondent No.3, Revenue Divisional Officer, who immediately addressed a letter No.Rc.E.4139/2020 dated 06.11.2020 to respondent No.4, Tahsildar requesting him to conduct detailed enquiry into the matter and submit report for taking further action. But, no action is taken by respondent No.4 while continuing the names of respondent Nos.5 and 6 in the revenue records. 6. The petitioner contended that the inaction of respondent No.4 amounts to violation of fundamental right guaranteed under Article 300 A of the Constitution of India, requested to issue a direction as claimed in the writ petition. 7. Respondent No.4 did not file any counter. 8. Respondent Nos.5 and 6 filed counter denying material allegations inter alia contending that the relief claimed by the petitioner is in negative form, thereby the writ petition is not maintainable. 9. It is contended that Sy.No.152 of S.Lingamdinne Village, Gonegandla Mandal is consisting of Ac.11.50 cents, out of which one Pedavenkatappa, S/o Arella Madhanna has purchased an extent of Ac.5.50 cents from Hanumanthu, Lingappa and Nagappa, sons of Peddapuram Nagappa in the year 1948 vide document No.84 of 1948 dated 05.02.1948. Sri Timmappa Lakshmana purchased an extent of Ac.3.00 cents from Chinna Hanumanthu vide document No.1929 of 1965 dated 11.08.1965. Similarly, Chinna Somanna purchased an extent of Ac.3.00 in the same survey number from Chinna Hanumanthu, S/o Lingala vide document No.1928 of 1965 dated 10.08.1965. Therefore, land on ground is not available to purchase by the petitioner in Sy.No.152 of S.Lingamdinne Village, Gonegandla Mandal and the present sale deed is pressed into service only to claim part of the land in the said survey number. 10. Therefore, land on ground is not available to purchase by the petitioner in Sy.No.152 of S.Lingamdinne Village, Gonegandla Mandal and the present sale deed is pressed into service only to claim part of the land in the said survey number. 10. It is further contended that in the earlier writ petition No.23961 of 2014, this Court directed the authorities to consider the case of the petitioner, but no positive direction was issued. But the petitioner obtained Pattadar passbooks and title deed with the connivance of the revenue department, and the revenue authorities have not issued notice to respondent Nos.5 and 6 before issuing pattadar passbook to the petitioner and no enquiry was conducted. The petitioner was never in possession and enjoyment of the land in Sy.No.152 of S.Lingamdinne Village, on this ground also the petitioner is disentitled to claim relief in the writ petition. 11. It is further contended that the vendor of the petitioner did not own and possess any land in Sy.No.152 of S.Lingamdinne Village. The respondents further denied even the sale of the property and receipt of consideration under sale deed and that the very issue of pattadar passbook and title deed as directed in W.P.No.26931 of 2014 does not arise. In the absence of proof of individual title to the property, the question of mutation of name of the petitioner in the revenue records does not arise. 12. It is further contended that the land admeasuring an extent of Ac.1.00 cents in Sy.No.152 of S.Lingamdinne Village owned by Arella Madhanna, who donated the land to Bhodhaan Board under registered document No.1917 of 1965 dated 07.08.1965. Later, the said land was allotted to Pedda Maddileti in the same year. The said Pedda Maddileti gifted the said land to his son Maddileti, respondent No.5 herein on 15.09.2010, to whom pattadar passbook and title deed were issued. 13. It is contended that respondent No.6 filed suit for cancellation of the sale deed, declaration of title and consequential injunction in the year 2021 (CFR No.131 of 2021) against the petitioner. Copy of the plaint is also placed on record along with counter. The petitioner is disentitled to claim writ of Mandamus in the present writ petition as the remedy available to the petitioner is to get title declared in a competent civil Court. Copy of the plaint is also placed on record along with counter. The petitioner is disentitled to claim writ of Mandamus in the present writ petition as the remedy available to the petitioner is to get title declared in a competent civil Court. However, the suit filed by respondent No.6 is pending before the Civil Court and till the disposal of the suit, the name of the petitioner cannot be mutated in the revenue records, requested to dismiss the writ petition. 14. The petitioner filed rejoinder denying the material allegations made in the counter while reiterating the contentions urged in the writ petition. 15. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent Nos.5 and 6. 16. Considering rival contentions, perusing the material available on record, the point needs to be answered by this Court is as follows: Whether a direction be issued to respondent No.4 to mutate the name of the petitioner in the revenue records, Form-1B for the land in an extent of Ac.1.30 cents situated in Sy.No.152 of S.Lingamdinne Village, Gonegandla Mandal, Kurnool District in the circumstances pleaded by both the parties? POINT : 17. A bare look at the material on record, it is clear that the petitioner applied for mutation of his name in the revenue records and for issue of pattadar passbooks and title deeds in his favour for the land admeasuring Ac.1.30 cents in Sy.No.152 of S.Lingamdinne Village, Gonegandla Mandal, Kurnool District. But the copy of the application made by the petitioner is not placed on record, except sale deed dated 04.01.2012, order passed in W.P.No.23691 of 2014, Pattadar passbook dated 02.11.2014, letters and correspondence between respondent Nos.3 and 4. According to the procedure prescribed under law, the petitioner has to make appropriate application giving intimation under Section 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for short “the Act”) about his acquisition of title to the immovable property within thirty days from the date of such acquisition. On receipt of such intimation, the recording authority, respondent No.4 herein has to follow the procedure prescribed under Section 5 (3) of the Act read with Rule 19 (1) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Rules, 1989 (for short “the Rules”). On receipt of such intimation, the recording authority, respondent No.4 herein has to follow the procedure prescribed under Section 5 (3) of the Act read with Rule 19 (1) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Rules, 1989 (for short “the Rules”). Here, there is, absolutely, nothing to establish that the petitioner made an application through Mee-Seva on payment of requisite fee for mutation and issue of pattadar passbooks in his favour. In the absence of appropriate application, respondent No.4 is not under obligation to act upon such request/representation or application, which is not in consonance with the procedure prescribed under the Act and the Rules. Therefore, the inaction of respondent No.4 cannot be held to be illegal, arbitrary and the said inaction of respondent No.4 does not amount to failure to discharge public duty by public officer. 18. In “Raisa Begum v. State of U.P., 1995 All.L.J. 534”, the Allahabad High Court has held that certain conditions have to be satisfied before a writ of mandamus is issued. The petitioner to claim writ of mandamus must show that he has a legal right to compel the respondent to do or abstain from doing something. There must be in the petitioner a right to compel the performance of some duty cast on the respondents. The duty sought to be enforced must have three qualities. It must be a duty of public nature created by the provisions of the Constitution or of a statute or some rule of common law. 19. Writ of mandamus cannot be issued merely because, a person is praying for. One must establish the right first and then he must seek for the prayer to enforce the said right. If there is failure of duty by the authorities or inaction, one can approach the Court for a mandamus. The said position is well settled in a series of decisions. 20. It is well-settled that existence of a legal right of a petitioner which is alleged to have been violated is the foundation for invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. While reiterating this legal proposition, the Supreme Court in paragraph 38 of its judgment in “Ghulam Qadir v. Special Tribunal, (2002) 1 SCC 33 ”, held thus: "38. While reiterating this legal proposition, the Supreme Court in paragraph 38 of its judgment in “Ghulam Qadir v. Special Tribunal, (2002) 1 SCC 33 ”, held thus: "38. There is no dispute regarding the legal proposition that the rights under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be enforced only by an aggrieved person except in the case where the writ prayed for is for habeas corpus or quo warranto. Another exception in the general rule is the filing of a writ petition in public interest. The existence of the legal right of the petitioner which is alleged to have been violated is the foundation for invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under the aforesaid Article. The orthodox rule of interpretation regarding the locus standi of a person to reach the Court has undergone a sea change with the development of constitutional law in our country and the constitutional Courts have been adopting a liberal approach in dealing with the cases or dislodging the claim of a litigant merely on hypertechnical grounds. If a person approaching the Court can satisfy that the impugned action is likely to adversely affect his right which is shown to be having source in some statutory provisions the petition filed by such a person cannot be rejected on the ground of Ms having not the locus standi. In other words, if the person is found to be not merely a stranger having no right whatsoever to any post or property, he cannot be non-suited on the ground of his not having the locus standi." (emphasis supplied) 21. In view of the law declared in the judgments (referred supra), the petitioner must plead and prove that legal right existed either statutory or constitutional right and it is infringed or invaded or threatened to infringe or invade by the respondents. But, the bald allegations made in the affidavit without demonstrating the existence of any right and its infringement or its invasion or threatened infringement or invasion by the respondents are not sufficient. In the absence of establishing the existence of right, its infringement or invasion or threatened infringement or invasion, the petitioner is not entitled to claim writ of mandamus. But, the bald allegations made in the affidavit without demonstrating the existence of any right and its infringement or its invasion or threatened infringement or invasion by the respondents are not sufficient. In the absence of establishing the existence of right, its infringement or invasion or threatened infringement or invasion, the petitioner is not entitled to claim writ of mandamus. In view of the law declared by the Supreme Court and reiterated by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in the judgment referred supra, the petitioner must plead and prove that a legal right possessed by him is violated or infringed or threatened to be infringed to obtain a relief of writ of mandamus. 22. Writ of Mandamus can be granted only against the State and its instrumentalities when a demand made by private individuals to do or not to do an act or thing by the State or its instrumentalities and denied the same by the authorities. 23. For the issue of mandamus against an administrative authority the affected individual must demand justice and only on refusal he has right to approach the Court. In “Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Limited v. Union of India, AIR 1975 SC 460 ”, the Supreme Court has adopted the following statement of law in this regard. : "As a general rule the orders would not be granted unless the party complained of has known what it was he was required to do, so that he had the means of considering whether or not he should comply, and it must be shown by evidence that there was a distinct demand of that which the party seeking the mandamus desires to enforce, and that the demand was met by a refusal." 24. Thus, a party seeking mandamus must show that a demand is made for justice from the authority concerned by performing his duty and that the demand was refused. In “Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Limited v. Union of India” (referred supra) the Court refused to grant mandamus as there was no such demand and refusal. Where a civil servant approached the court for mandamus against wrongful denial of promotion, he was denied the relief because of his failure to make representation to the government against injustice. The said principle was reiterated in “Amrit Lal v. Collector, C.E.C., Revenue, AIR 1975 SC 538 ”. 25. In “the Statesman v. Fact Finding Committee, AIR 1975 Cal. Where a civil servant approached the court for mandamus against wrongful denial of promotion, he was denied the relief because of his failure to make representation to the government against injustice. The said principle was reiterated in “Amrit Lal v. Collector, C.E.C., Revenue, AIR 1975 SC 538 ”. 25. In “the Statesman v. Fact Finding Committee, AIR 1975 Cal. 14 ” the Court opined that the demand for justice is not a matter of form but a matter of substance, and it is necessary that a “proper and sufficient demand has to be made”. The demand must be made to the proper authority and not to an authority which is not in a position to perform its duty in the manner demanded. It is suggested that the Court should not fossilize this rule into something rigid and inflexible but keep it as flexible. 26. Thus, the law is well settled that there must be a demand from the citizen and denial by the State authorities. Applying the law laid down in the judgments (referred supra) to the present facts of the case, the petitioner is disentitled to claim any relief. 27. The contention of the petitioner is that he purchased an extent of Ac.1.30 cents in Sy.No.152 of S.Lingamdinne Village, Gonegandla Mandal, Kurnool District from Boya Pedda Ampayya for valid sale consideration of Rs.65,000/-. The petitioner placed on record copy of sale deed dated 04.01.2012. No details as to the source of title of the vendor of the petitioner viz. Boya Pedda Ampayya are mentioned in the entire sale deed. However, respondent Nos.5 and 6 contended that the said Boya Pedda Ampayya did not possess any land, but executed sale deed without title to the property. It is clear that the person who had no title to the property cannot transfer better title than what he possessed. Even before this Court, the petitioner did not disclose the details of source of title of his vendor, except pleading that he purchased the land. 28. It is undisputed fact that the names of respondent Nos.5 and 6 are noted in column Nos.12 and 13, of No.3 Adangal (cultivation account) as Pattadar and enjoyer. In column Nos.14 and 15, the source of acquisition of title is mentioned as ‘purchase’. 28. It is undisputed fact that the names of respondent Nos.5 and 6 are noted in column Nos.12 and 13, of No.3 Adangal (cultivation account) as Pattadar and enjoyer. In column Nos.14 and 15, the source of acquisition of title is mentioned as ‘purchase’. The petitioner requested to delete the names of respondent Nos.5 and 6 in the revenue records and mutate his name in ROR and No.3 adangal i.e. cultivation account. Unless an enquiry is conducted in terms of Section 5 (3) of the Act on the basis of appropriate application subject to payment of requisite fee, the Tahsildar need not attend such request. It appears that the petitioner did not comply with the statutory requirement of making application for deletion of names of respondent Nos.5 and 6 and to mutate his name on payment of requisite fee through Mee-seva. Hence, the petitioner failed to establish source of title of his vendor and did not make application strictly adhering to the Rules. On the other hand, the land is in occupation of respondent Nos.5 and 6. Unless they are removed from the possession of the property legally, the name of the petitioner cannot be mutated in column Nos.12 and 13 of Adangal of the village. However, the suit filed by respondent No.6 for cancellation of the sale deed dated executed in favour of the petitioner by his vendor, declaration of title and other consequential reliefs, is pending before the Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Pattikonda. On the basis of pendency of plaint at preregistration stage, respondent Nos.5 and 6 requested to dismiss the petition. But mere pendency of suit for declaration of title and other reliefs is not a ground to deny the relief by the recording authority if appropriate application is made by the petitioner in compliance of rules through Mee-seva on payment of requisite fee. If respondent Nos.5 and 6 succeeds in the suit, which is allegedly pending before the Junior Civil Judge, Pattikonda, they are entitled to make appropriate application under Section 4 (1) of the Act in the event of mutating the name of the petitioner after conducting necessary enquiry adhering to the procedure prescribed in Section 5 (3) of the Act read with Rule 19 (1) of the Rules. Respondent No.4 did not comply with the direction issued by this Court in earlier writ petition No.23961 of 2014. Respondent No.4 did not comply with the direction issued by this Court in earlier writ petition No.23961 of 2014. If the application of the petitioner is not in accordance with law, the Tahsildar can reject the claim of the petitioner on that ground alone, but keeping it pending without passing any order amounts to denial of discharge of public duty by public officer. In the present facts of the case, pleadings are insufficient and no details were disclosed as to the manner of application made by the petitioner to enable this Court to issue a direction to respondent No.4 to mutate the name of the petitioner in Form-3 Adangal (cultivation account). Therefore, it is difficult to issue a direction as sought for by the petitioner since the pleadings are bereft of details. 29. Regarding pattadar passbook and title deeds, the petitioner himself admitted in the writ affidavit about issue of pattadar passbook and title deed in favour of the petitioner on 02.11.2014. Respondent Nos.5 and 6 also admitted in the counter about the issue of Pattadar passbook and title deed in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, this Court need not issue any direction for issue of pattadar passbook and title deed in favour of the petitioner. 30. As the petitioner failed to plead and prove that he made appropriate application in compliance of statutory requirements under the Rules, I find no ground to declare the action of the respondents as illegal and arbitrary to issue a direction as claimed by the petitioner. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 31. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. 32. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed.