APHC010014872025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] MONDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 770/2025 Between: 1. N SUNDARAIAH, S/O. N.VENKATA REDDY, AGED 78 YEARS, OCC. SARPANCH, R/O. YANAMADALA VILLAGE, CHEJERLA MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS AT VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE COMMISSIONER AND DIRECTOR, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PVS ICON BUILDINGS, TADEPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR PANCHAYAT WING, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT, NELLORE. 4. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICER, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT, NELLORE. 5. THE DIVISIONAL PANCHAYAT OFFICER, ATMAKURU, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 6. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, YANAMADALA GRAM PANCHAYAT, YANAMADALA VILLAGE, CHEJERLA MANDAL SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 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 toPleased to issue any writ or direction more particularly a writ in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of Respondent No.4 in issuing the impugned order in ROC.No.2887/2024-A2 dt.27.11.2024 cancelling the cheque drawing powers of petitioner without giving an opportunity to the petitioner, without considering the explanation of petitioner and without following the due process of law as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, violative of Principles of Natural Justice, Article 14, 21 of the Constitution of India, consequently set-aside the same and restore the cheque drawing powers of the petitioner and to 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 pleased to suspend the impugned order in ROC.No.2887/2024-A2 dt.27.11.2024 issued by Respondent No.4 and restore the cheque drawing powers of the petitioner, pending disposal of the above writ petition pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V VINOD K REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 3 The Court made the following Order: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents. 2. This writ petition was filed questioning the action of the respondent Nos.2 to 4 in not considering the representation of the petitioner dated 25.11.2025 submitted to the 4th respondent and F-Line Application No.FSNV012500864888 dated 22.11.2025. 3. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader relying upon the written instructions from the 4th respondent dated 09.02.2026 submits that the petitioner submitted F-Line application through Sachivalayam dated 22.11.2025 specifically for Sy.No.56-5A of Rushikonda Village but not Sy.No.56-11. The said F-Line application was duly received and processed by the office of the Tahsildar, Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal. The field verification was conducted by the Mandal Surveyor of the office of the 4th respondent with reference to the village records and ground position. The Mandal Surveyor categorically reported that the land shown by the petitioner does not fall within Sy.No.56-5A, for which the F-Line application was filed and the petitioner is not in physical possession of the land shown by him including the land claimed in Sy.No.56-11. Basing on the said survey report, the Deputy Tahsildar, Visakhapatnam Rural issued an endorsement dated 09.12.2025 stating that the boundaries could not be 4 shown and survey could not be done, as the land claimed by the petitioner was not under his physical possession. Thus, the petitioner’s F-Line application was considered, verified on the ground and disposed of in accordance with law and the decision was duly communicated. 4. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the copy of the endorsement dated 09.12.2025 was not received. 5. In view of the above said facts and circumstances, no relief can be granted in this writ petition as no cause survives. The copy of the endorsement dated 09.12.2025 of the Deputy Tahsildar, Visakhapatnam Rural may be sent again to the petitioner. It can be collected by the petitioner also. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. The written instructions of the 4th respondent dated 09.02.2026 shall be made as part of the court record. Interim order, if any, deemed to have been vacated. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________ JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN 09.02.2026 NNN