- ORDER : TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO, J. The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to declaring the Order in Ref.No.B/159/2025 dated 02.06.2025 of the respondent No.4 inter alia in declaring the respondent No.5 as the title holder of the land in an extent of Ac.1.00 cents in Sy.No.405/1 Ac.0.80 cents in Sy.No.405/2 and Ac.3.06 cents in Sy.No.405/3 of Bandlapalli Village fields Ramapuram Mandal Annamayya District merely basing on the permanent injunction granted in her favour over the aforementioned lands despite the Trial Court clear findings of title discrepancies and the fact that the petitioner’s husband lost the suit for declaration of title as arbitrary illegal contrary to the provisions of the A.P.Rights in Land and the Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971, and the Rules made there under and also the well established legal principles apart from being violative of the fundamental and the Constitutional rights guaranteed to me under Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same and for appropriate relief. 2. On comprehending the prayer, the Writ Petition appears to be premature. 3. The brief narration of facts: The petitioner claims ownership in an extent of Ac.2-00 and in extent of Ac.3.60 cents in Sy.No.405/2 and in extent of Ac.3.06 cents in Sy.No.405/3 of Bandlapalli Village fields Ramapuram Mandal. Petitioner submits that this property belongs to petitioner’s mother, Sontem Nagamma @ Savitramma, who filed a legal suit (O.S. No. 345 of 1952) in the District Munsif Court of Kadapa for a declaration of title. The court decreed the suit in her favor, and possession was granted through a final decree in I.A. No. 601 of 1953. Since then, the petitioner mother has enjoyed peaceful possession of the property until her death. The Tahsildar issued Pattadar Pass Books and title deeds in her favour. After her demise, the petitioner inherited the property. 4. However, the 5 th respondent, Avula Reddappa Reddy, filed Civil Suit O.S.No.21 of 2010 in the Junior Civil Judge Court, Lakkireddipalli, against the petitioner and four others for a declaration of title over the land in Survey No. 405/2, which was dismissed on June 24 th , 2019. Later, the 5 th respondent filed Civil Suit O.S.No.39 of 2012 seeking a permanent injunction against the petitioner and others from interfering with the property in Survey Nos. Later, the 5 th respondent filed Civil Suit O.S.No.39 of 2012 seeking a permanent injunction against the petitioner and others from interfering with the property in Survey Nos. 405/2, 405/3, 406/2, and the old house bearing D.No.10/3. This suit was decreed in favor of the 5 th respondent on 06.04.2016. Subsequently, an appeal (A.S.No.9 of 2017) filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the V Additional District Judge in Rayachoty on June 30.06.2023, in favour of the 5 th respondent. 5. Based on these judgments, the 4 th respondent Tahsildar concluded and instructed the 5 th respondent to submit a relevant application and documentary proof through Mee-Seva for the mutation of her name in the revenue records and the issuance of Pattadar Pass Books, as per the impugned proceedings Reference B/159/2025 dated 02.06.2025. The petitioner argues that this order is incorrect and contradicts the findings of the civil suit O.S.No.345 of 1952. The petitioner contends that the 4 th respondent Tahsildar does not have the authority to declare rights among parties, having become functus officio, as the petitioner’s rights were already established. Additionally, the petitioner states that her name has been duly mutated in the revenue records, and Pattadar Pass Books were issued in her favour. Thus, the 4 th respondent cannot direct the 5 th respondent to seek a mutation of her name; the 5th respondent should approach the appropriate authority to request the cancellation of the Pattadar Pass Books issued in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner pleads that the writ petition be granted or allowed and to set aside the impugned proceedings dated 02.06.2025, and to grant any other appropriate relief. - 6. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION: 1. Whether the petitioner is entitled for the relief as prayed. 2. Whether the 4 th respondent Tahsildar has declared the rights and has become “functus officio .” 7. The 4 th respondent – Tahsildar, in his proceedings dated 02.06.2025, has restated the facts as previously articulated by this court and noted that it clearly indicates the 5 th respondent is the title holder of the property. This observation is considered incorrect based on the facts presented in the affidavit supporting the writ petition. The writ petitioner has claimed that a civil suit for declaration was decreed in favour of the petitioner’s mother. This observation is considered incorrect based on the facts presented in the affidavit supporting the writ petition. The writ petitioner has claimed that a civil suit for declaration was decreed in favour of the petitioner’s mother. However, the petitioner has not filed either the decree or judgment the suit O.S.No.345 of 1952, despite asserting that the civil suit was decided in favour of the petitioner’s mother. Furthermore, the 4 th respondent, Tahsildar, did not declare any rights of the parties in his proceedings dated 02.06.2025. Therefore, the argument that the 4 th respondent is functus officio is deemed unacceptable or untenable. - 8. The recording authority is required to issue notice to the affected persons and carry out amendments in the revenue records in recognition of accrual of rights. It is only when the entries are amended, that a situation would emerge for the party concerned, to make an application under Section 6-A of the Act. In such an event, if the pattadar pass book is to be issued for the first time, no difficulty as such would arise. On the other hand, if the pattadar pass book was already issued in favour of any one, the same has to be cancelled through an administrative order and a fresh pass book needs to be issued to the applicant in accordance with the entries amended under Section 5 of the Act. 9. After careful review, the judgment in suit O.S No.35 of 2012, on the file of the Junior Civil Judge Lakkireddpalli, it is evident that the 5th respondent has filed certified copies of pattadar pass books, marked as Exs.A25 to A28, at the time of filing the suit. The 5 th respondent possessed the pattadar pass books. The pattadar pass books filed by the petitioner it clearly indicate that they were issued on 12.03.2023 Therefore, the argument made by the writ petitioner that the 5th respondent should pursue an appeal or revision is not applicable, as evidenced by the judgment and decree, which indicate that the pattadar pass books were actually issued prior to 2012. 10. The main emphasis of the petitioner is that the petitioner’s mother was declared the rightful owner of the property. 10. The main emphasis of the petitioner is that the petitioner’s mother was declared the rightful owner of the property. In this regard, it is apt to refer to the judgment of the Apex Court, wherein the Apex Court stated that a mere declaration of title by a competent civil court does not necessarily mean that the declarant is in possession of the property. - 11. In c as e of State of Andhra Pradesh and others v/s Star Bone Mill and Fertiliser Company , reported in (2013) 9 SCC 319 , in has held that where possession of plaintiff is not prima facie wrongful and his title is not proved, it certainly does not mean that because a man has title over same land, he is necessarily in possession of it. It certainly does not mean that because a man has title over some land, he is necessarily in possession of it. 12. In Gurunath Manohar Pavaskar & Ors. v. Nagesh Siddappa Navalgund & Ors., (2007) 13 SCC 565 = AIR 2008 SC 901 , the Apex Court held as under:- “A revenue record is not a document of title. It merely raises a presumption in regard to possession. Presumption of possession and/or continuity thereof both forward and backward can also be raised under Section 110 of the Evidence Act." 13. Exhibits A24 to A 28 referenced in the suit O.S.No.35 of 2012 indicate that Paatadar Pass Books were issued to the ancestors of the unofficial 5 th respondent, demonstrates that the 5 th respondent is in possession of the property. The Junior Civil Judge Court decreed the suit in favour of the 5 th respondent in the suit O.S.No.35 of 2012 regarding a permanent injunction, and this judgement was upheld by the appellate court in A.S.No.9 2017 through a judgment and decree dated 30.06.2023. 14. The Junior Civil Judge Court decreed the suit in favour of the 5 th respondent in the suit O.S.No.35 of 2012 regarding a permanent injunction, and this judgement was upheld by the appellate court in A.S.No.9 2017 through a judgment and decree dated 30.06.2023. 14. In the case of Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad Through its Commissioner Vs The State of Maharashtra & Anr., reported in (2015) 16 SCC 689 a three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court (at Para No- 13), held that mutation in revenue record is on the basis of the possession of the land for the purposes collecting revenue, the it expedient to extract relevant para: “It is settled that mutation does not confer any right and title in favour of any one or other, nor cancellation of mutation extinguishes the right and title of the right owner. Normally, mutation is recorded on the basis of the possession of the land for the purposes collecting revenue.” 15. The documents marked Exs.A25 to A 28, along with the suit filed by the 5 th respondent, clearly establishes that the 5 th respondent is in possession of the property. It has to be further noted that a pattadar passbook will be issued to those who’s in possession of the property. The judgment from the apex court in the case of Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad through its Commissioner supports this position. A man has title over some land, he is necessarily need not in possession of it [See judgement of the Apex Court in St a r Bone Mill a nd Fertiliser Comp a ny (referred supra). The arguments presented by the petitioner’s counsel were addressed by this court. This Court doesn’t not see any perversity or illegality the order impugned of the 4 th respondent Tahsildar. - 16. Consequently, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed, and it is dismissed without costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand dismissed.