APHC010297112019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA WRIT PETITION No.13880 OF 2019 Between: Nallamolu Mahalakshmi, W/o.Srinivas, Hindu, Female, Aged 40 years, Korukonda Gadala, Gadala, East Godavari District. ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District, and others. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr.Mangena Sree Rama Rao Counsel for the Respondents: G.P. for Revenue Mr.K.Venkatesh The Court made the following ORDER: Heard Mr.M.Lalith Kumar, learned counsel representing Mr.Mangena Sree Rama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr.Dilip Naik K, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue representing respondent Nos.1 to 4. Mr.K.Venkatesh, learned counsel for respondent No.5 appeared through online. 2. The present writ petition is filed seeking to declare the action of respondent No.4 in issuing notices proposing to conduct enquiry and 2 threatening to issue Pattadar Pass Books and Title Deeds over an extent of 174.16 Sq.yards out of Ac.0.50 cents out of total extent of Acs.2.44 cents in R.S.No.262 of Nidigatla Village, Korukonda Mandal, East Godavari District in favour of respondent No.5, in spite of the petitioner’s objections and pendency of the declaration suit in O.S. No.344 of 2018 on the file of the Court of Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rajamahendravaram, without following due process of law as illegal, arbitrary, violative of the provisions of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971, the Rules framed thereunder, apart from violation of the Articles under the Constitution of India, and for consequential directions. 3. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner sought to address the arguments with reference to the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and the material filed along with the record, the same need not be examined in detail. 4. Suffice to state that after issuing the notices impugned in the writ petition, as is evident from the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.4 and the material enclosed to the same, the application made by the respondent No.5 was rejected by the respondent No.4 vide endorsement dated 30.10.2019. Against the said endorsement, the respondent No.5 filed Revision Petition before the Sub-Collector, Rajamahendravaram and after due enquiry, the Revision Petition was dismissed on 18.11.2019. In the light of the said proceedings, the grievance of the petitioner with regard to application made by the respondent No.5 for issuance of the PPBs/TDs in his favour and notices issued pursuant thereto, does not survive for adjudication. 3 5. Therefore, the writ petition is closed. However, closure of this writ petition would not come in the way of considering the respective claims in the suit, which is already pending between the parties. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ NINALA JAYASURYA,J December 22, 2025. vasu