APHC010555872025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 28980 OF 2025 Between: 1. R USHA, W/o. Udya Kumar, Aged about 45 years, Cultivation, R/o. Mannarayanipalle, H/o. Gangavaram Village and Post, Gangavaram Mandal, Chittoor District. ...Petitioner AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department Secretariat Bldgs, Velgapudi, Amaravati. 2. The Joint Collector, Chittoor, Chittoor District. 3. The District Revenue Officer, Chittoor, Chittoor District. 4. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Palamner, Chittoor District. 5. The Thasildar, Gangavaram Mandal, Chittoor District. 6. G Jayamma, W/o. Chittibabu Aged about 50 years, R/o. Gangavaram Village and Post, Gangavram Mandal, Chittoor District. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: T C KRISHNAN Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE 2 W.P.No.28980 of 2025 The Court made the following ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “...to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, to declare the proceedings of the 3rd respondent vide L 4/e-/746/2025, dated 16.09.2025 wherein and where under rejected the revision petition on the ground of delay amounts to erroneous, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India besides being violative of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the same by allowing the writ petition in the interest of justice and to pass...” 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents. 3. On perusal of the orders passed by the 2nd respondent rejecting the revision petition, it is clear that it was rejected solely on the ground of delay of 12 days. 4. Considering the submissions, the petitioner is permitted to take out notice to the 6th respondent as the same is not been served as no such person is available. 5. On perusal of the record and impugned orders, this Court is of the view that the impugned orders shall be set aside remanding the matter to the 2nd respondent to consider the revision on merits and pass appropriate orders after issuing notice to the concerned parties. 3 W.P.No.28980 of 2025 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE D. RAMESH Date: 20.11.2025 NSM 4 W.P.No.28980 of 2025 117 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 28980 OF 2025 20.11.2025 NNSSM M