APHC010221692025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3458] FRIDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 11550 OF 2025 Between: 1. DUMPA SRINIVASULA REDDY, S/O VENKATA RAMANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCCPRIVATE EMPLOYEE, R/O FLAT NO.207 BLOCK-D, SRUSTI SYMOHONY,3 KALAJHOTHI ROAD, MAJSIDBANDA, KONDAP HYDERABAD. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, rep., by its Principal Secretary, Revenue, Registration Stamp Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K MOHAN RAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: 1. GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS The Court made the following order: Heard Sri K.Mohan Rami Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt. Kotharu Vijayeswari, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Registration and Stamps appearing for respondents. 2 2. The grievance of the petitioners in the present writ petition is against the inaction of the 2nd respondent in passing orders on the application dated 09.10.2018 filed by the petitioners, seeking deletion of the subject property from the prohibited properties under Section 22-A(1)(e) of the Registration Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), in terms of G.O.Ms.No.197 dated 05.05.2016. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the subject property was included in the list of prohibited properties and sought deletion of the same. It is submitted that the petitioners had earlier approached this Court by way of writ petition in W.P.No.41422 of 2016. The said writ petition was disposed of by the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, directing the State Level Grievance Redressal Committee constituted vide proceedings dated 02.06.2017 to examine the claims of persons against inclusion of the properties under Section 22-A of the Act and in the light of the Full Bench judgment of the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Vinjamuri Rajagopala Chary Vs. Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Hyderabad1. In pursuance thereof, the petitioners submitted an application dated 09.10.2018 before the said Committee. However, no orders have been passed on the said application. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contends that, in the light of G.O.Ms.No.197 dated 05.05.2016, the 2nd respondent has recommended to 12015 SCC OnLine Hyd 407 3 the Government that the lands assigned prior to 1954 cannot be treated as assigned lands. Accordingly, lands were removed from the prohibited category vide G.O.Ms.No.258 Revenue (Assignment-IV) Department dated 18.05.2018. However, the petitioners’ lands still continue in the prohibited category. 5. In the said regard, learned counsel for the petitioners seeks a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on the application dated 09.10.2018 filed by the petitioners as expeditiously as possible, since the continued inaction on the part of the Committee is depriving the petitioners rights in respect of the subject property. 6. The 6th respondent filed counter affidavit stating that, as per the directions issued by the District Collector, Guntur, vide proceedings dated 12.12.2017, the subject property was kept under the prohibited category and accordingly shown as a prohibited property. 7. Considered the rival submissions. 8. Having regard to the fact that, in the earlier round of litigation, this Court had directed the Committee to look into the grievance of the petitioners with regard to deletion of the subject property from the prohibited list and pass appropriate orders. Despite the same, the respondents are sitting over the application submitted by the petitioners. No counter affidavits have been filed by the concerned respondents. 9. Smt. Kotharu Vijayeswari, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Registration and Stamps appearing for the respondents has placed before the 4 Court a copy of the written instructions received from the Tahsildar dated 07.05.2026. A perusal of the same would reflect as follows: “The then Tahsildar submitted a report vide RC.No. 210/2016-DT, dt: 19.07.2016 to the competent authority APCRDA, regarding the Sy.Nos. which were assigned prior to 1954 in Yerrabalem H/o Nowluru, Nidamarru, Kuragallu and Krishnaya Palem, stating that as per the available records i.e RSR, FMB & Adangals the Sy.Nos which were mentioned in the report of the above villages in Mangalagiri Mandal have been assigned prior to 1954. The subject Sy. No.827/2 is one among them. As per the enquiry, subject land is prior to 1954 but this Sy.No. and its extent not included in the G.O.MS.No.580 and G.O.MS.No.258 for the reasons not known. It is further submitted that, vide Proceedings of the Collector, Guntur in RC.No. 4245/2015/E1 dt:12.12.2017, the said Sy No has been allenated to APCRDA. The Possession and enjoyment of the Sy No is under APCRDA and according to APCRDA master plan, Development road N-7 has been formed through this Sy No. the said Sy.no is in prohibitory property list 22-A(1)(c) in the IGRS website in the name APCRDA. It is further submitted that, a report for deletion of the said Sy.no from prohibitory property list was submitted to the District Collector, Guntur Rc.No. 791/2018-DT, dated: 01.09.2025 to take necessary action in this regard.” 10. The written instructions of the Tahsildar dated 07.05.2026 are placed on record. 5 11. It is stated that the subject property in Sy.No.827/2 continues to remain in the prohibited category, proceedings have already been submitted to the District Collector for deletion of the said survey number from the prohibited properties list. 12. Having regard to the same and considering that the 2nd respondent is the competent authority in terms of the earlier directions issued by this Court for consideration of the application of the petitioners, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the 2nd respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on the application dated 09.10.2018 submitted by the petitioners, as expeditiously as possible, within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 13. With the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA Date: 08.05.2026 BSK 6 126 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 11550 OF 2025 Date: 08.05.2026 BSK