::1:: APHC010623882025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3208] THURSDAY,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 32224/2025 Between: 1. KALASAMUDRAM RAMACHANDRAPPA, S/O LATE RAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS R/O VANAVOLLU VILLAGE, GORANTLA MANDAL, SRI SATHYA SAI DIST ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, AT PUTTAPARTHY, SRI SATHYA SAI DISTRICT 3. 3. THE JOINT COLLECTOR, PUTTAPARTHY, SRI SATHYA SAI DISTRICT 4. 4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PUTTAPARTHY, SRI SATHYA SAI DISTRICT 5. 5. THE TAHSILDAR, GORANTLA MANDAL, SRI SATHYA SAI DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): ::2:: This Court made the following ORDER: 1. This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the Petitioners for the following relief: “..to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondents in not taking action on the representation dated 21.4.2025 of the petitioner to mutate his name in the revenue records under A.P. Rights in Lands in Pattadar Pass Books and Title Deeds Act, 1971 as per the proceedings of the 4th Respondent vide Rc. No. 42/2023/D dated 28.1.2025, as bad, arbitrary and violative of Art. 14, 21 300-A of the Constitution of India and to pass…” 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents. 2. The Writ Petition is filed aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents in not taking steps on the representation dated 21.04.2025 submitted by the petitioner seeking mutation of his name in the revenue records under the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971, in terms of the proceedings issued by the 4th respondent dated 28.01.2025. 3. The learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents requested time for getting written instructions in this matter. ::3:: 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the writ petition itself questions the inaction of the respondent authorities and that no factual disputes arise for consideration. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to go into the merits of the case, as the limited request made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is for implementation of the order passed by the 4th respondent. 5. In view of the same, the Writ Petition is disposed of by directing the 5th respondent to pass appropriate orders as directed by the 4th respondent in proceedings dated 28.01.2025, within a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications if any pending, shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE D. RAMESH Dt:20.11.2025 klk ::4:: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D. RAMESH WRIT PETITION No.32224 of 2025 Dt:20.11.2025 klk 103