APHC010697412025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3208] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 35784/2025 Between: 1. H NAGENDRA, S/O KONDANNA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, HINDU, R/O D.NO.3-92, SC COLONY, MAIN ROAD, ROTARIPURAM, BUKKARAYASAMUDRAM MANDAL. 2. H.JYOTHI, D/O KONDANNA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS W/O B.PANDAVA, R/O D.NO.3-92, SC COLONY, MAIN ROAD, ROTARIPURAM, BUKKARAYASAMUDRAM MANDAL. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT BUILDING, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT, ANANTAPUR. 3. THE JOINT COLLECTOR, ANANTAPURAM. 4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ANANTAPUR. 5. THE TAHSILDAR, BUKKARAYASAMUDRAM, ANANTAPUR. 6. K YERRANANNA, S/O CHINNA NAGAPPA, AGED 67 YEARS, SC COLONY. MAIN ROAD, ROTARIPURAM. ANANTAPURAM 7. SMT K KAMAKSHI, W/O LATE NAGABUSHANAM, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, SC COLONY, MAIN ROAD, ROTARIPURAM, BUKKARAYASAMUDRAM MANDAL. ANANTAPURAM 2 8. SMT LALITHAMMA, W/O SHIVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O SC COLONY, MAIN ROAD, ROTARIPURAM, BUKKARAYASAMUDRAM MANDAL. ANANTAPURAM 9. SMT ADEMMA, W/O. GANESH, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, SC COLONY MAIN ROAD, ROTARIPURAM, BUKKARAYASAMUDRAM MANDAL. ANANTAPURAM . ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, i. Declaring action of the Respondents herein, more particularly the action of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ananthapur / Respondent No.4 herein in dismissing the Appeal filed by the Petitioners vide vide Rc.No.D2(B)731/2023 dated 03.09.2025 as being illegal, arbitrary, unjust, violative of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 and the rules made thereunder, violative of the Principles of Natural Justice and violative of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India ii. Consequently direct the Official Respondents to amend the Revenue Records by mutating the names of the Petitioners with regard to the property to an extent of Ac.5.00 cents in Sy.No.118, Bodiganidoddi Village and iii. pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents to maintain status quo with regard to the property to an extent of Ac.5.00 cents in Sy.No.118, Bodiganidoddi Village and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. VIVEKANANDA VIRUPAKSHA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 3 ORDER: The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief: <…to issue a Writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, i. Declaring action of the Respondents herein, more particularly the action of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ananthapur / Respondent No.4 herein in dismissing the Appeal filed by the Petitioners vide Rc.No.D2(B)731/2023 dated 03.09.2025 as being illegal, arbitrary, unjust, violative of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 and the rules made thereunder, violative of the Principles of Natural Justice and violative of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India; ii. Consequently direct the Official Respondents to amend the Revenue Records by mutating the names of the Petitioners with regard to the property to an extent of Ac.5.00 cents in Sy.No.118, Bodiganidoddi Village and pass…= (in verbatim) 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. 3. The contention of the petitioner is that, aggrieved by the orders passed by the 4th respondent, the petitioner preferred a revision under Section 9 of the Act before the 3rd respondent. Though the said revision was filed in the month of September, so far the 3rd respondent has neither taken up the revision nor numbered the same. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition has been filed. 4 4. Considering the submissions, this Court is not inclined to go into the merits of the case. Accordingly, notice to respondent Nos.6 to 9 is dispensed with. 5. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 3rd respondent to consider the revision filed by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders after following the due procedure contemplated under the Rules, within a period of four (04) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH Date: 23.12.2025 SNI 5 77 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 35784 OF 2025 Dt.23.12.2025 SNI