IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 510 OF 2025 Between: 1. D Lakshmi Devi, W/o. Keshavapalli Murali, Aged 51 years, R/o. D.No. 2/128/1, Chinna Koneru Veedhi, Kadiri Town and Mandal, Satya Sai District. R. Hymavathi, W/o. Venkata Narayana, Aged 47 years, R/o. D.No. 5/145-61-D, Near Ayyappa Swamy Temple, Kadiri Town and Mandal, Satyasai District. 2. ...PETITIONERS AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. The District Collector, Puttaparti, Satya Sai District. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kadiri, Satya Sai District. The Tahsildar, Kadiri, Satya Sai District. 2. 3. 4. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue any writ or direction more particularly a writ in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the order in Rc.No.B/268/202G dt. 15.11.2024 issued by the 4th respondent as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and to set- aside the same and to delete the lands of the petitioners to an extent of Ac. 1.21 cents in Sy.No.1725 of Kadiri Town and Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District from prohibited list of properties issued under G.O. MS.No.201 dated 05.05.2016 and consequently direct the respondents to issue pattadar passbooks and title deeds in favour of petitioners in respect of land admeasuring an extent of Ac. 1.21 cents in Sy.No. 1725 of Kadiri Town and Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District by duly mutating the names of the petitioners in revenue records. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the order in Rc.No.B/268/2020 dated 15.11.2024 issued by the 4th respondent by directing the respondents to issue pattadar passbooks and title deeds in favour of petitioners in respect of land admeasuring an extent of Ac. 1.21 cents in Sy.No.1725 of Kadiri Town & Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District, pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI D HARSHA VARDRHAN REPRESENTING SRI V VINOD K REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH; AMARAVATI ★ * * * WRIT PETITION No. 510 of 2025 Between; 1. D. Lakshmi Devi, W/0. Keshavapatli Murali, Aged 51 years, R/o. D.No. 2/128/1, Chinna Koneru Veedhi, Kadiri Town & Mandal, Satya Sai District. 2. R. Hymavathi, W/0. Venkata Narayana, aged 47 years, R/o. D.No. 5/145-61-D, Near Ayyappa Swamy Temple, Kadiri Town & Mandal, Satyasai District. Petitioners AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. The District Collector, Puttaparti, Satya Sai District. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kadiri, Satya Sai District. 4. The Tahsildar, Kadiri, Satya Sai District. Respondents DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED; 21.01.2025. 2 SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers / may be allowed to see the Judgments ? 2. Whether copies of Judgment may be marked to Law Reporters/Journals ? 3. Whether Your Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Judgment ? Yes/No i/Yes/No Yes/No 3 * HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD + WRIT PETITION No.510 of 2025 % 21.01.2025 Between: # 1. D. Lakshmi Devi, W/0. Keshavapalli Murali, Aged 51 years, R/o. D.No. 2/128/1, Chinna Koneru Veedhi, Kadiri Town & Mandal, Satya Sai District. 2. R. Hymavathi, W/0. Venkata Narayana, aged 47 years, R/o. D.No. 5/145-61-D, Near Ayyappa Swamy Temple, Kadiri Town & Mandal, Satyasai District. ....Petitioners Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. $1. 2. The District Collector, Puttaparti, Satya Sai District. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kadiri, Satya Sai District. 4. The Tahsildar, Kadiri Satya Sai District. Respondents 4 ! Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri D. Harsha Vardhan, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri V. Vinod K Reddy, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners. ^ Counsel for the Respondents: Sri K. Arjun Chowdhary, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. < Gist: > Head Note: ? Cases Referred: Nil f 1 [3328] APHC010008642025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 510/2025 Between: 1.D LAKSHMI DEVI, W/0. KESHAVAPALLI MURALI, AGED 51 YEARS, R/0. D.NO. 2/128/1, CHINNA KONERU VEEDHI, KADIRI TOWN AND MANDAL SATYA SAI DISTRICT. 2.R. HYMAVATHI,, W/0. VENKATA NARAYANA, AGED 47 YEARS, R/0. D.NO. 5/145-61-D, NEAR AYYAPPA SWAMY TEMPLE, KADIRI TOWN AND MANDAL, SATYASAI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL REVENUE DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, SECRETARY VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PUTTAPARTI, SATYA SAI DISTRICT. 3.THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KADIRI, SATYA SAI DISTRICT. 4.THE TAHSILDAR, KADIRI, SATYA SAI DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petltioner(S): 1.VVINOD K REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 2 1.GPF0R REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER: Heard Sn D. Harsha Vardhan, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sr, V. V,nod K Reddy, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners and Sri K Arjun Chowdhary, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. 2. The prayer sought in the present Writ Petition iIS as under; nio ^ prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue any writ or direction more particularly a writ in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Rc.No.B/268/2020 dt. 15.11.2024 issued by the 14 21 rnfaoo A oHh’ of Articles asid^thT^ J Constitution of India and to set- aside the same and to delete the lands of the petitioners 0 an extent of Ac. 1.21 cents in Sy.No.1725 of Kadiri own and Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District from prohibited 05 05 20lTanr G O.Ms.No.201 dated ICC ^ ^°risequently direct the respondents to issL^e pattadar passbooks and title deeds in fayour of Af1 2Trerit"s M an extent o qri Q P O ^ Sy.No. 1725 of Kadiri Town and Mandal Sri Satya Sai District by duly mutating the names of the pew,oners in revenue records and ,o pass such otto order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and E.ofrjure-"^"“^ 3. The facts in the present had already approached this Court :W.P.No.16449 of 2020 case would indicate that the Writ Petitioners on three earlier occasions (first round second round; W.P.No.18435 of 2020 and third round;W.P.No.23089 of 2024). The prayers sought in the three earlier Writ also be discussed in the narration of facts case are in a narrow Petitions and their outcome would in the chronological sequence. The facts of this compass, which are mentioned here/n below. 3 4. That agricultural land of an extent of Acs.2.41 cents in Sy.No. 1725 of Kadiri Village & Mandal, Satya Sai District was initially assigned in favour of one Sri Mangali Gangodu by the Respondents vide Darakhast No.739/25 dated 30.11.1925; that Sri Mangali Gangodu is the grandfather of the Petitioners herein; that the name of the Original Assignee (Sri Mangali Gangodu) is also mentioned in the Revenue Record relating to subdivision in the Village of Kadiri Taluk; that the Village Records were also mutated by the then Tahsildar on 14.06.1927 which is reflected in Ex.P.4 vide Proceeding in 8A102/36; that necessary changes were also made in Village Account No.3 and A-Register; that the field map which is attached to Ex.P.4 would also indicate the same; and that the technical survey was also done on 29.07.1927 vide Proceedings in 8A102/36. 5. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners that the grandfather of the Petitioners herein was in peaceful possession and enjoyment without any interruption of the subject land by eking-out his livelihood by cultivating the subject land; that the grandfather of the Writ Petitioners (Original Assignee) has also taken loan by mortgaging the said land in the Co-operative Town Bank Limited, Kadiri on 19.04.1949 (Ex.P.5); that the loan was also repaid; that Sri Mangali Gangodu, who is the grandfather of the Writ Petitioners, had four sons (1. Sri Anjaneyulu, 2. Sri Venkata Narasu, 3. Sri Sreenivasulu and 4. Sri Venkata Ramana); that the abovementioned extent of Acs.2.41 cents in Sy.No.1725, has therefore devolved equally on the four sons, that includes their respective legal heirs too; that it is needless to state that all the four sons of the Original Assignee would get 1/4'*^ share each; that as a family arrangement, the first two sons of the Original Assignee had constituted a half share and continued to carry on the agricultural activity; that the 3’’'^ and 4*^ sons of the Original Assignee constituted the 2^^ half share namely by Sri Sreenivasulu and Sri Venkata Ramana; Sri Sreenivasulu (3^*^ son) died leaving behind his wife Smt. Sugunamma, Sri Vijaya Baskar (son) and Smt. Usha Rani (daughter); and,that 4 the 4 son namely Sri Venkata Ramana also died leaving behind three daughters namely the Writ Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 herein and one Smt. Jyothi. 6. 6. It IS further submitted by the learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners that the legal heirs of Sri Srinivasulu (3 Smt. Sugunamma (wife), Sri Vijaya Baskar (son) of the Original Assignee) namely son and Smt. Usha Rani (daughter) along with the sibling sister of the Writ Petitioners herein Smt. Jyothi have jointly executed a Settlement Deed dated 13.08.2020 favour of the Writ Petitioners herein bequeathing their entire share the Writ Petitioners herein; that namely in in favour of as a consequence of the said Settlement Deed (however, copy of the Settlement Deed is not placed on record) is to the effect that two Writ Petitioners herein became entitled for the the share that devolved from the Original Assignee; that prior to the said Settlement Deed, the Writ Petitioners along with Smt. Jyothi (sibling) Usha Ram (daughter of Sri Srinivasulu) have filed W.P.No.16449 of 2020 (1®* round) questioning the action of the Respondents Passbooks and Title Deeds in respect of the subject lands; that the said Writ Petition was dismissed by an Order dated 15.09.2020 (not placed directing the Writ Petitioners to make appropriate Application through seva; that since no action entire one half of and Smt. in not granting Pattadar on record) Mee- was forthcoming from the Tahsildar on the Application filed by the Writ Petitioners, on 18.09.2020 the Writ Petitioners herein filed W.P.No. 18435 of 2020 (2 nd round); this W.P.No. 18435 of 2020 was disposed of by an Order dated 09.10.2020 with a direction to the Tahsildar to dispose of the Representation dated 18.09.2020 in accordance with law within four weeks; that in response to the said Order of this Court dated 09.10.2020 (in W.P.No.18435 of 2020) No,4) rejected the claim of the Writ Petitioners, after conducting an enquiry by passing a non-speaking order, vide Proceedings in Rc.No.B/268/2020 dated 18.10.2020 (Ex.P.2); that the Writ Petitioners have filed the Tahsildar (Respondent C.C.No.486 of 2022 in W.P.No.18435 of 2020, which is pending on the file of this Hon’ble Court for adjudication. 5 It is further submitted that the Writ Petitioners have filed W.P.No.23089 of 2024 (3'"'^ round) challenging the Order passed by the Tahsildar (Respondent No.4) dated 18.10.2020 (Ex.P.2); that the Writ Petitioners have also sought a further direction to remove the subject land from the Prohibited Properties List under Section 22A of the Registration Act; that vide Order dated 15.10.2024 (Ex.P.10), this Hon’ble Court was pleased to set-aside the impugned Order therein dated 18.10.2020 (Ex.P.2): and that the learned Single Judge (Hon’ble Sri Justice Gannamaneni Ramakrishna Prasad) in para Nos.3 to 5, had held as under: 7. “3. On perusal of the said annexure, at SI.No.9861, it would indicate that the lands were assigned to the Petitioners' grandfather prior to 1954 without the condition of non-alienability. In the opinion of this Court that this single fact would disclose that the Tahsildar has passed the impugned Order without application of mind. The impugned Order would also indicate that several documents were furnished by the Petitioners but the Tahsildar did not refer to any of the documents and did not give any specific reason either for admitting or rejecting each of such document. While deciding the rights of the parties, the law requires that a reasoned Order giving justification for rendering the decision one way or the other, must be given whereas, the present impugned Order is a non- Speaking Order and therefore, the same cannot be sustained in law. 4. Accordingly, the impugned Order dated 18.10.2020 Rc.No.B/268/2020 (Ex.P.1) stands quashed. 5. The Tahsildar (Respondent No.4) is directed to conduct De-novo Enquiry and pass a Speaking Order by duly considering each and everydocument by giving reasons for either accepting or rejecting such documents in the final order. There shall be a further direction to the Respondent No.4 to conclude the said enquiry within a period of six weeks from today and pass a Speaking Order within two weeks thereafter and furnish a copy of such Order to the Writ Petitioners forthwith.” 8. It is further submitted that in pursuance of the said direction, to conduct a de novo enquiry by considering the effect of each and every document, the Tahsildar (Respondent No.4) has passed the Order dated 15.11.2024 bearing Rc.No.B/268/2020 (Ex.P.1), which is impugned herein. 9. This Court has perused the impugned Order passed by the Tahsildar dated 15.11.2024. It transpires from the impugned Order that one Smt. Masalthi Vijayalakshmi w/o Sri M. Krishna Murthy filed O.S.No.15/2020 on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kadiri with regard to the 2/4“’ joint share in Sy.No.1725 of an extent of Acs.2,41 cents of Kadiri Village. It is the contention of the Plaintiff therein (Smt. Masalthi Vijayalakshmi) that she has purchased the half of Acs.2.41 cents by way of an Agreement of Sale dated 19.07.2008 from the legal heirs of the 1 and 2"'^ son of Sri Mangali Gangodu. It is further stated in the impugned Order that the said Suit between Smt. Masalthi Vijayalakshmi and the legal heirs of the 1®‘ and 2 nd sons of Sri Mangali Gangodu (namely Sri Anjaneyulu and Venkata Narasu) was compromised in the Lok Adalat. Kadiri on 29.07.2021; that as a consequence of the said Compromise, the Sale Deed executed on or before 30.09.2021; that insofar as the other half of the property is concerned (which is alleged to have fallen to the share of 3'^^ and 4*^ Sri Mangali Gangodu namely Sri Sreenivasulu and Sri Venkata Ramana Legal Notice was issued to the Official Respondents dated 24.05.2021 record) that the legal heirs of the 3'"^ and 4'^ Petitioners herein) have executed an Agreement of Sale favour of one Sri Talari Obula Naidu s/o Obulesu of Kadiri Village for of 2/3 share out of an extent of Acs.2.41 cents in Sy.No.1725 of Kadiri Village, that it is further stated in the impugned Order that there is a Civil Suit pending bearing O.S.No.377/2019 on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kadiri and the same stood posted to 11.12.2024 was sought to be sons of the (not on sons (including the Writ on 24.06.2008 in an extent 7 Taking note of these facts, the Tahsildar (Respondent No.4) has observed that there is a title dispute between the legal heirs of Sri Mangali Gangodu and the third parties (vendees). It is further stated that the entire land is covered under various agreements of sale with different extents and two different persons. It is also stated that the Writ Petitioners have submitted a Settlement Deed dated 13.08.2020, which is in fact an unregistered Settlement Deed. The relevant portion of the impugned Order is usefully extracted hereunder: 10. “In another legal notice received from the Sri K.Chewdappa, Advocate, Kadirl Dt. 24.05.2021 that the writ petitioners i.e., the legal heirs of S"'* son Sreenivasulu and 4*^son Venkataramana of late Mangala Gangadu who executed a sale agreement on 24.06.2008 in favour of One Sri Talari Obula Naidu Kadiri2/3''^share in Sy.No.1725 ex 2.41. This issue is also pending in the Civil Court on the file of Principle Junior Civil Judge, Kadiri in O.S.377/2019 and the case stands posted to 11.12.2024 is pending in the Civil Court (copy enclosed) s/o Obulesu of So, there is title dispute in between the legal heirs of the Mangala Gangodu as well as purchasers of the land. More over the land is entirely under sale of agreements with different extents and to different persons. Now the entire land 2.41 acre is entirely under the sale of agreements of other persons not related to the legal heirs of Sri Mangali Gangodu. The legal heirs sold out the Government land as if the land is possessed by them ancestrally and related to their family. These facts are not brought by the writ petitioners during the time of filing writ before the Honorable High Court of A.P. as well as during filing claims for issuance of pattadar pass books before the Tahsildar, Kadiri. The writ petitioner's submitted Un-registered settlement deed dt. 13.8.2020 to an extent of 2.41 cents without consent and without documentation from other legal heirs of Mangali Gangodu, executed 2/3' share in favour of TalariObula Naidu s/o Obulesu. In fact as per Genealogy they are entitled to 1/12^^share to an extent of 0-20 cents each. So, claiming of extents at various stages in various documents, the claim of right over the property of Mangali Gangadu by the Petitioner is questionable and detriment.” 8 The Tahsildar (Respondent No.4), having made various observations indicated above, had finally concluded in the impugned order as under; 11. as “Finally, in the instant case, the Writ Petitioners i.e.,Smt Devalam Lakshmi Devi w/o K. Murali and Devalam Hymavathi w/o Venkata Narayanaare hereby directed to as per above all questionable points with Writ Petition wise, it is concluded that unable to issuance of Pattadar Pass books in favour of the petitioners in respect of Sy.No.1725 extent of 1.21 acres of Kadiri Village ofKadiri Mandal.” The facts which are noted hereinabove would clearly indicate that this has a checkered history insofar as the rights of various parties and also with regard to various extents. It is also noticed that not only the legal heirs of the 1®' son of the Original Assignee have entered into an Agreement of Sale dated 19.07.2008 and thereafter, entered into compromise to execute a Registered Sale Deed on or before 30.09.2021 in O.S.No. 15/2020 (on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kadiri, the legal heirs of the 3'"' and sons of the Original Assignee, including the Writ Petitioners herein have also entered into agreements of sale and that there is a Suit filed by one Sri Talari Obula Naidu bearing O.S.No.377/2019 (pending on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kadiri). It is also noticed that the claim of the Plaintiff therein is to an extent of 2/3"'^ share out of Acs.2.41 cents in Sy.No.1725. Surprisingly, the Writ Petitioners herein have not made any whisper about the pendency of the Suit bearing O.S.No.377/2019 on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kadiri nor have they mentioned anything about the Legal Notice dated 24.05.2021. Though the impugned Order vividly discloses the particulars of the pending Civil Suit (O.S.No.377/2019), the Writ Petitioners have not made any attempt to explain the relevancy or otherwise of the pending civil dispute. In a case of this nature, seeking a quasi-judicial remedy from the Executive is certainly not the right approach on the part of the Writ Petitioners. 12. case 9 Suppressio veri, suaaestio falsi: Having regard to the above facts, although this Court is absolutely unhappy with regard to non-disclosure of all the relevant facts on the file of this Court by way of an Affidavit filed in support of this Writ Petition, this Court would rather desist from making any adverse comments against the conduct of the Writ Petitioners with regard to non-disclosure of material facts, lest they may have adverse bearing in any other proceeding. 13. Non-Joinder of necessary parties is fatal: 14. This apart, there is also another issue relating to the conduct of the Writ Petitioners inasmuch as the Writ Petitioners have not arrayed the Plaintiff (one Sri Talari' Obula Naidu S/o Sri Obulesh) in O.S.No.377/2019, as a party Respondent, perhaps, attempting to get an Order behind the back of the Plaintiff/Sri Talari Obula Naidu. If it is a fact that Sri Talari Obula Naidu has filed O.S.No.377/2019 against the two Writ Petitioners herein, the said Plaintiff would become a necessary party in the present Writ Petition. Non-joinder of a necessary party would visit any proceeding with fatality in the ultimate. 15. For the above reasons, this Court is not inclined to entertain this Writ Petition having regard to the unfair conduct on the part of the Writ Petitioners as noted hereinbelow: for non-disclosure of material facts; for not placing on record the material documents; and, iii. for non-arraying the necessary parties. 16. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed as not only being devoid of merit but also as being abuse of process. The Writ Petitioners are directed to pay exemplary costs of Rs.20,000/- (Twenty thousand rupees only), jointly and severally. Out of the said exemplary costs, the Writ Petitioners are directed to deposit Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand rupees only) in favour of the Andhra Pradesh High Court Legal Services Cpmmittee and the balance of I. 10 Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand rupees only) in favour of the Andhra Pradesh High Court Advocates’ Association within a period of three (03) weeks from today. Registry is directed to supply copies of this Order to the Secretary, the Andhra Pradesh High Court Legal Services Committee and the President of the Andhra Pradesh High Court Advocates’ Association, for effective compliance. The President is directed to purchase the law books with the said amount and add them to the Association’s Library. 17. Writ Petitioners are given liberty to approach the Civil Court, if so advised. The observations and adverse remarks are made by this Court only in response to the present set of facts and circumstances and therefore, they shall not have any bearing on the legal rights and contentions of any of the parties in any proceedings henceforth. 18. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. 19. MEMO OF COSTS WP NO.510OF 2025 Cost Quantified By Court (That the writ petitioners are directed to deposit exemplary costs of Rs.20,000/-(Twenty Thousand Rupees), jointly and severally. Out of the said exemplary costs, Rs. 10,000/-(Ten Thousand Rupees) shall be deposited to Andhra Pradesh High Court Legal Services Committee and the remaining Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand Rupees) shall be deposited in favour of the Andhra Pradesh High Court Advocates’ Association within a period of three (3) weeks. NAGAMMA assistant REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER One Fair Copy to the Hon’ble SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD (For His Lordship’s kind perusal) To, 1. D Lakshmi Devi, W/o. Keshavapalli Murali, Aged 51 years, R/o. D.No. 2/128/1, Chinna Koneru Veedhi, Kadiri Town and Mandal, Satya Sai District. 2. R. Hymavathi, W/o. Venkata Narayana, Aged 47 years, R/o. D.No. 5/145-61-D, Near Ayyappa Swamy Temple, Kadiri Town and Mandal, Satyasai District. & 3. The Secretary, Andhra Pradesh Legal Service Committee, High Court of A.P. at Amaravati. 4. The Secretary, Andhra Pradesh High Court Advocates Association, High Court Buildings, Amaravati, Guntur. Andhra Pradesh High Court Advocates Association, 5. The President, High Court Buildings, Amaravati, Guntur. 6. One CC to Sri V Vinod K Reddy Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 8. 9 L.R. Copies. 9. The Under Secretary, Union Company Affiars, New Delhi. 10. The Secretary, A.P. High Court Advocates Association, High Court of A.P. at Amaravati, Guntur District. 11. Three CD Copies of India, Ministry of Law, Justice & TF HIGH COURT DATED:21/01/2025 ORDER WP.No.510 of 2025 3^ o 18 FEB 2025 ^ . Current Section dismissing the W.P., WITH COSTS