APHC010261222025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] MONDAY THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 13707/2025 Between: Mittichala Snehalatha and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. JAVVAJI SARATH CHANDRA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV The Court made the following ORDER: Heard Sri Javvaji Sarath Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Rama Dheeraj, learned counsel representing Smt.S.Pranathi, learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent. 2. The above writ petition is filed to declare the inaction of 3rd respondent in considering the representation dated 07.04.2025 (Ex.P.1) made by the petitioners, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of the provisions of the Andhra 2 Pradesh Capital Region Development Authority Act, 2014 (for short “APCRDA Act, 2014”). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the 1st petitioner’s husband and father of petitioners 2 and 3, Viz., Mittichala Raju, died intestate on 24.01.2002. (b) The Government assigned land to an extent of Ac.0.96 cents in Sy. No. 298/7 of Venkatapalem Village, Thullur Mandal, Guntur District, by way of DKT Patta to one Mittichala Guravayya, the father of the deceased Mittichala Raju. (c) The said Mittichala Guravayya passed away, and thereafter, the subject land devolved upon his wife, Mittichala Chittemma. The Revenue officials issued a patta in her name vide No.966, dated 15.11.2006. After the demise of Mittichala Chittemma, the other family members obtained a Family Member Certificate, excluding the petitioners and subsequently made a representation to the 2nd respondent requesting the issuance of a reconstituted plot for the aforementioned extent of land. (d) Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners made a representation, Ex.P.1; however, the District Collector did not act upon the same. 4. Sri Rama Dheeraj, learned counsel, submits that no such representation was made by the petitioners to the 2nd respondent. He further submits that Ex.P.1 was addressed to the District Collector, and the authority is not the competent authority to resolve any dispute under the APCRDA Act, 2014. The learned counsel also submits that the Commissioner, CRDA, is the competent authority in this regard. 3 5. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners will make a fresh representation to the proper authority. 6. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, without going into the merits of the matter, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the admission stage with the consent of learned counsel on either side, giving liberty to the petitioners to make a fresh representation to the appropriate authority. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand dismissed. ____________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Dated 16.06.2025 KA