APHC010508852022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3208] TUESDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 31204/2022 Between: 1. KONDURU LAKSHMI DEVI, W/O. KONDURU JAGANMOHAN REDDY, AGED 55 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. P.KONDAPURAM VILLAGE, PAMIDI MANDAL, ANANATAPUR DISTRICT, A.P. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, AP SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, GUNTAKAL, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, PAMIDI MANDAL, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. ...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 topleased to issue an order, direction or Writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.4 in calling the petitioner to the office of the respondent No.4 and threatening the petitioner that the name of the petitioner would be deleted from revenue records viz., Pattadar Passbooks and ROR in respect of property to an extent of Ac.4-38 cents situated in Sy.No.367/9 of Pamidi village and Mandal, Anantapur District and that the petitioner should not carry out any agricultural operations/cultivation in the property to an extent of Ac.4-38 cents situated in Sy.No.367/9 of Pariidi village and Mandal, Anantapur District, as illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and in violation of Articles 14 and 300-A of Constitution of India and contrary to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbook Act, and consequently direct the respondent No.4 not to make any amendment in respect of the revenue entries in revenue records and also not to interfere with my possession and enjoyment in respect of property to an extent of Ac.4-38 cents situated in Sy.No.367/9 of Pamidi village and Mandal, Anantapur District, without due process of law, in the interest of justice and to pass AND APHC010165932024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3208] TUESDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 8478/2024 Between: 1. D. MOHAMMED SHAREEF, S/O HASSAN SAB, R/O 8/249, CHURCH ROAD, GOOTY, ANATHAPURAM, ANDHRA PRADESH - 515401. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, AP SECRETARIAT, VELGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, GUNTAKAL, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. 4. THE THASILDAR, , PAMIDI MANDAL, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT. 5. KONDURU LAKSHMI DEVI, W/O JAGAN MOHAN REDDY, R/O P. KONDAPURAM VILLAGE, PAMIDI MANDAL, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT, A.P. ...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 an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 4TH Respondent in not implementing the orders of the 3RDrespondent Dt. 02.08.2022 wherein the 3RD respondent has directed The 4 respondent to mutate the name of the petitioner in the revenue records in respect of land situated in R.S.No. 367-9 to an extent of Ac. 04.38 cents situated at Pamidi Village and Mandal, Ananthapuram District as arbitrary, illegal, contrary to the procedure envisaged under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Book Act 1971 and the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Book Rules 1989 and Constitutional Rights guaranteed under Article 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 4TH respondent to delete the name of 5TH respondent and mutate the name of the Petitioner in respect of land admeasuring Ac. 04.38 cents situated in R.S No. 367-9 of Pamidi Village and Mandal, Ananthapuram District and pass The Court made the following the Common Order:- 1. As both the writ petitions are interconnected, they are taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of by way of this common order. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents. 3. The contention of the petitioner in W.P. No.8478 of 2024 is that, despite the appeal filed by the petitioner having been allowed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Guntakal, vide order dated 02.08.2022, the respondent authorities, more particularly the 4th respondent/Tahsildar, have failed to implement the said order. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed. 4. The learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that, inasmuch as the 5th respondent in W.P. No.8478 of 2024 had earlier filed W.P. No.31204 of 2022 and obtained an interim order of status quo dated 26.09.2022, the 4th respondent has been unable to implement the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 02.08.2022. 5. Based on the above facts, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P. No.8478 of 2024 submits that, after disposal of the appeal filed by the petitioner, and without impleading the petitioner herein, the 5th respondent filed the earlier writ petition No.31204 of 2022 suppressing the fact of disposal of the ROR appeal and obtained an interim order. 6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court was pleased to pass an interim order dated 26.09.2022 in W.P. No.31204 of 2022, which reads as under: “The documents filed along with the writ petition, namely, the Adangal and 1-B Register downloaded on 13.09.2022, disclose that the petitioner is in possession of the subject property. In view of the same, there shall be an interim direction to the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner or interfere with his possession of the subject property except by following due process of law.” 7. In reply thereto, the learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent submits that the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer was not served on the 5th respondent and, therefore, no statutory revision could be filed. 8. In the aforesaid circumstances, W.P. No.31204 of 2022 is disposed of by vacating the interim order dated 26.09.2022 passed by this Court and by directing the petitioner therein to approach the competent forum under the provisions of the Act, if he has any grievance against the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 02.08.2022. 9. Further, W.P. No.8478 of 2024 is disposed of by directing the 4th respondent to consider and implement the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 02.08.2022 and to take appropriate steps in accordance with law, after issuing notice to all the parties concerned. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE D. RAMESH 30.12.2025 klk 267 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION No.31204 of 2022 and W.P.No.8478 of 2024 30.12.2025 kkllkk