::1:: APHC010627022025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3208] THURSDAY,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 32340/2025 Between: 1. SMT.ILLAPU SIMHACHALAM,, W/O.LATE KULLANNA, D/O. POTNURU VENKATA SWAMY, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, D.NO 1- 111, OPP- RAMALAYAM, VENKATAPURAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT-29. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, , REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI AT AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT AT VISAKHAPATNAM. 3. THE JOINT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE OFFICE, MAHARANIPETA, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY, VISAKHAPATAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 5. THE TAHSILDAR, PENDHURTHI MANDAL, PENDHURTHI, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 6. KOMPALLI DEMUDAMMA, W/O. SANNIBABU, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O.PINAGADI VILLAGE, PENDHURTHI MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. ::2:: 7. GURRI SATYAM, S/O.CHENCHU APPANNA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O.PINAGADI VILLAGE, PENDHURTHI MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 8. KOMPALLI SIMHADRAPPADU, S/O.PENTAYYA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O.PINAGADI VILLAGE, PENDHURTHI MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 9. KOMPALLI TRINADHA RAO, S/O PENTAYYA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/O.PINAGADI VILLAGE, PENDHURTHI MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 10. KORUPALLI SANKARA RAO, S/O. PENTAYYA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/O.PINAGADI VILLAGE, PENDHURTHI MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRIET. 11. VENNELA DEMUDAMMA, W/O GOWRI NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/O.PINAGADI VILLAGE, PENDHURTHI MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRIET. 12. GURRI DEMUDU, S/O RAMA SWAMY, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O.PINAGADI VILLAGE, PENDHURTHI MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 13. GURRI BANGARAYYA, S/O CHENCHAYYA SWAMY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O.PINAGADI VILLAGE, PENDHURTHI MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 14. ARISETTY SRAVAN KUMAR, S/O SATYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/O.PINAGADI VILLAGE, PENDHURTHI MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 15. POTHULA THATA BABU, , S/O SOMULU, AGED 55 YEARS, R/O.PINAGADI VILLAGE, PENDHURTHI MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 16. BANDARU SATYANARAYANA, , S/O. PEDA SOMULU, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O.PINAGADI VILLAGE, PENDHURTHI MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 17. BAILAPUDI SIMHADRI, S/O.NOT KNOW TO PETITIONER, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O.PINAGADI VILLAGE, PENDHURTHI MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. ::3:: 18. POTNURU KITTAYYA, , S/O APPA RAO, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O.PINAGADI VILLAGE, PENDHURTHI MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 19. GURRI AMMATHALLI, S/O CHINNAYYA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O.PINAGADI VILLAGE, PENDHURTHI MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 20. GURRI RAMULU ALIAS RAMU, S/O CHLNNAYYA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O.PINAGADI VILLAGE, PENDHURTHI MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 21. KANCHALA ESWARA RAO, S/O SIMHACHALAM, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O.PINAGADI VILLAGE, PENDHURTHI MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 22. ANNAPUREDDY KANNAYYA, S/O.NOT KNOW TO PETITIONER, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O.PINAGADI VILLAGE, PENDHURTHI MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 23. KORUPOLU APPALA NAIDU, S/O SIMHADRI APPANNA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O.PINAGADI VILLAGE, PENDHURTHI MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 24. GORLE SAMUDRAM, S/O SANYASI, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/O.PINAGADI VILLAGE, PENDHURTHI MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 25. VENNELA RAMANAMMA, W/O APPALA NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O.PINAGADI VILLAGE, PENDHURTHI MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 26. VENNELA RAJUBABU, S/O APPALA NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O.PINAGADI VILLAGE, PENDHURTHI MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 27. VENNELA BANGARU NAIDU, S/O APPALA NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O.PINAGADI VILLAGE, PENDHURTHI MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): ::4:: This Court made the following ORDER: 1. This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the Petitioners for the following relief: “..to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the inaction on the part of the Respondent Nos.2 to 5 herein in marking red colour and making entries in dispute register in respect of the lands in Sy.No. 187/2, 5, 6, Sy.No.188/1,2,4,5,6,8,11 and Sy.No. 195/8,9,10 situated at Pinagadi Village, Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhapatnam District in spite of representation dated 08-08-2025 submitted by the petitioner as illegal as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, without jurisdiction, violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondent Nos.2 to 5 herein to make necessary entries in dispute register in respect of the lands in Sy.No. 187/2, 5, 6, Sy.No. 188/1,2,4,5,6,8,11 and Sy.No. 195/8,9,10 situated at Pinagadi Village, Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhapatnam District till attains finality of the proceedings initiated by the 4th respondent herein under ROR Act and pass…” 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent authorities have mutated the records by deleting the name of the petitioner and, in its place, recording the names of unofficial respondents. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 4th respondent, which was duly entertained, and notice was issued to the parties. In view of the ::5:: pendency of the said appeal, the petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking inclusion of the subject properties in the dispute register. 4. Upon perusal of the orders passed by the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court in Writ Appeal Nos. 943, 944, and 945 of 2022, it is observed that the subject circular issued by the Office of the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, dated 19.03.2024, contemplates the procedure under Clauses (d) and (e), which read as under: d. Cases where an ROR appeal/review has been filed and is pending before the DRO/JC respectively, and there is a clear direction from the DRO/JC directing that the said land be included in the dispute register, the said lands may be included in dispute register till the appeal/review is finally decided and orders passed. After orders as are passed, the Tahsildar shall remove such lands from the dispute register and incorporate the orders in the revenue records. e. Cases where an Inam appeal/review is pending with RDO/Commissioner- Appeals respectively, and there is a clear direction from the RDO/Commissioner-Appeals directing that the said land be included in the dispute register, such lands shall be included in the dispute register. After orders are passed, the Tahsildar shall remove such lands from the dispute register and incorporate the orders in the revenue records. 5. However, the Division Bench has observed that the said circular lacks statutory support while making certain observations. Nevertheless, the writ appeal remains open for the petitioner to seek inclusion of the land in the dispute register by obtaining appropriate orders from the competent authority before whom the matter is pending. ::6:: 6. In view of the foregoing, the writ petition is disposed of, granting liberty to the petitioner to file an application before the authority where the appeal is pending. Such application, if filed, shall be considered by the authority in accordance with the instructions issued by the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration dated 19.03.2024, and appropriate orders shall be passed thereon. No costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications if any pending, shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE D. RAMESH Dt:20.11.2025 klk ::7:: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D. RAMESH WRIT PETITION No.32340 of 2025 Dt:20.11.2025 klk 371