1 APHC010567142025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3208] WEDNESDAY,THE TWELFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 29441/2025 Between: 1. VANTHALA BUDRA, S/O.IATE.V.SOMANNA, AGED ABOUT-55 YEARS, R/O.DOOR NO.7-39, ARAMA VILLAGE, DUBRIGUDA MANDAL, ALLURI SEETHARAMA RAJU DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, TRIBAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, AP SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, DUBRIGUDA MANDAL, ALLURI SEETHARAMA RAJU DISTRICT. 3. THE MANDAL REVENUE INSPECTOR, DUBRIGUDA MANDAL, ALLURI SEETHARAMA RAJU DISTRICT. 4. VILLAGE REVENUE OFFICER, ARAMA VILLAGE, DUBRIGUDA MANDAL, ALLURI SEETHARAMA RAJU DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P VEERRAJU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH WRIT PETITION No.29441 of 2025 ORDER: Aggrieved by the endorsement dated 02.09.2025 issued by the 2nd respondent, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 3. In fact based on the representation made by the petitioner on 18.07.2025, the authorities have conducted an enquiry and based on the statements directed the parties to approach the Civil Court for protection of their rights. 4. In paragraph No.6 of the affidavit the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is pattadar passbook holder and his name was entered in latest adangals. While some anti social elements are trying to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the property, the petitioner has made a representation on 18.07.2025. But, the said representation is not part of the record. 4 5. The authority while considering the said representation recorded that the grandfather of the petitioner was granted katha No.176 in Survey No.47-3 an extent of Ac.2.45 cents and in Survey No.62-2 an extent of Ac.2.40 cents and the petitioner got it by inheritance and accordingly he was in possession by cultivating the said lands. But, some persons came and threatened the petitioner and not permitted to cultivate the said lands. Hence, the petitioner seeks a direction to take action against them. 6. Considering the said representation and also after conducting survey, the authority has clearly held that as the petitioner is having records in his favour for the above referred lands, but according to the statement made by the petitioner, since five years he was not permitted to cultivate the said lands and also based on the statements made by the villagers, the impugned endorsement has given suggesting both the parties to approach the Civil Court to establish their rights. 7. A perusal of the above endorsement clearly discloses that the authority has not decided any title and in fact it has recognized the records in favour of the petitioner and the 5 authority has also not stated anything about the possession and it only suggested to approach the Civil Court for appropriate remedy. 8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that such endorsement is against law and authority has not properly applied its mind. In fact in the agency area the designated Civil Court is Revenue Authorities only. 9. Surprising to hear such argument, the authority has only suggested to approach the Civil Court even that might be the Revenue Authorities. But, it should be in a proper form and with a proper application. Instead of filing a comprehensive suit, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. In the impugned endorsement the authority has not decided the title as well as the possession and it is only suggested to go to Civil Court by filing a comprehensive suit. 10. In the said circumstances, neither suspension nor setting aside the said endorsement the petitioner is not going to get any relief. In view of the same as suggested by the Revenue 6 Authorities, if the petitioner is still any grievance, he may approach the competent Court. 11. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH Date: 12.11.2025 Ivd 7 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH WRIT PETITION No.29441 of 2025 Dated: 12.11.2025 Ivd