Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 17040 (AP)

Smt. S.Sreedevi, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh,

WP/11631/2025 · 2025-06-16

Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

::1:: APHC010231402025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] TUESDAY ,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 11631/2025 Between: Smt. S.sreedevi, ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. THATHIREDDY ASHOK SRIVASTAVA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE This Court made the following ORDER:- This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “to may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order, or Direction, more particularly a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 4th Respondent in removing his digital signature in web land in respect of the agricultural land of the Petitioner, to an extent of Ac. 1.00 cent situated in Survey No.831-lBlA2 of Bukkapuram Village, Mahanandi Mandal, Nandyal District, without issuing any prior notice, as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 and the Rules, 1989, and contrary to well-settled legal principles, apart 2 from being violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 19, 21, and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 4th Respondent to restore his digital signature in the Webland records in respect of the said agricultural land of the Petitioner and pass” 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of the agricultural land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.1.00 cents in Survey No.831- lBlA2 situated at Bukkapuram Village, Mahanandi Mandal, Nandyal District and having acquired the subject property from her vendor through a registered sale deed dated 22.01.2025. After purchasing the property, the petitioner submitted an application for mutation of her name in the revenue records. Pursuant to the said application, the 4th respondent mutated her name and affixed the digital signature in the online records in respect of the subject property on 14.04.2025. However, when the petitioner approached the Mee- Seva Kendra to collect the 1-B register and Adangal copy of the subject property, she found that the 4th respondent was removed the digital signature from the Webland portal without issuing any prior notice. As a result, the 1-B register and Adangal copy were not issued to her. Aggrieved by the action of the 4th respondent, the petitioner preferred the present writ petition. 3 3. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, appearing for the respondents, submits that the 4th respondent, i.e., the Tahsildar, issued proceedings dated 15.05.2025, wherein it is stated that the Adangal and other revenue records with digital signatures were issued, and the name of the petitioner was mutated as pattadar and possessor in respect of the subject property admeasuring to an extent of Ac.1.00 in Survey No.831-1B1A2, situated at Bukkapuram Village, Mahanandi Mandal, Nandyal District. Thus, the claim of the petitioner was redressed. Hence there is no orders are necessary in the writ petition. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents. 5. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents, and in view of the proceedings dated 15.05.2025 issued by the 4th respondent, it appears that the Adangal and other revenue records were issued to the petitioner with her digital signature, thereby updating her details in the revenue records. Therefore, since the claim of the petitioner 4 has been redressed, no further orders are required to be passed in this writ petition. 6. With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications if any pending, shall stand closed. _____________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA 17.06.2025 klk 5 132 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENAKTESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO.11631 of 2025 17.06.2025 klk