1 APHC010648272025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3208] MONDAY,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 33546/2025 Between: 1. SHAIK MOHAMMAD SAIFULLA BASHA, S/O. SHAIK RANGEEN SAHEB, AGED 55 YEARS, OCC PAN SHOP BUSINESS, R/O. D.N0.13/14-B, MOHAMMADPURA STREET RAYACHOTY, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. 2. SHAIK MAHABOOB BASHA,, S/O. MOHAMMAD GOUSE AGE 56 YEARS, OCC IRON SCRAP BUSINESS, R/O. MOHAMMADPURA STREET, RAYACHOTY, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT AT RAYACHOTY. 3. THE JOINT COLLECTOR, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT AT RAYACHOTY. 2 4. THE DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT AT RAYACHOTY. 5. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, RAYACHOTY REVENUE DIVISION, RAYACHOTY, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. 6. THE TAHSILDAR, RAYACHOTY MANDAL, RAYACHOTY ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. 7. SMT SHAIK NASEEB JAN, W/O. SHAIK ABDUL SALAM, R/O.D.NO.40/47-B-H, BOSE NAGAR, RAYACHOTY, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. 8. SHAIK IMAM VALI, S/O. SHAIK ABDUL SALAM, R/O.D.NO.40/47-B-H, BOSE NAGAR, RAYACHOTY, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. 9. SHAIK MOHAMMAD ALI, S/O. SHAIK ABDUL SALAM R/O.D.NO.40/47-B-H, BOSE NAGAR, RAYACHOTY, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. 10. SHAIK NASIRUN BANU, W/O. SHAIK SIRAJUDDIN, R/O. D.NO. 40/47-B-H, BOSE NAGAR, RAYACHOTY, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. 11. SHAIK NAZIYA, W/O. SHAIK JAABEER BASHA, D/O. SHAIK ABDUL SALAM, R/O. D.NO. 40/47-B-H, BOSE NAGAR, RAYACHOTY, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. 12. SHAIK IMRAN ALI, S/O. ABDUL SALAM, R/O.D.NO. 40/47-B-H, BOSE NAGAR, RAYACHOTY, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. SITA RAM CHAPARLA 3 Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. P SUBASH WRIT PETITION NO: 22309/2025 Between: 1. SHAIK MOHAMMAD SAIFULLA BASHA, S/O. SHAIK RANGEEN SAHEB, AGED 55 YEARS, OCC PAN SHOP BUSINESS, R/O. D.N0.13/14-B, MOHAMMADPURA STREET RAYACHOTY, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. 2. SHAIK MAHABOOB BASHA,, S/O. MOHAMMAD GOUSE AGED 56 YEARS, OCC IRON SCRAP BUSINESS, R/O. MOHAMMADPURA STREET, RAYACHOTY, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT AT RAYACHOTY. 3. THE JOINT COLLECTOR, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT AT RAYACHOTY. 4. THE DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT AT RAYACHOTY. 4 5. THE TAHSILDAR, RAYACHOTY MANDAL, RAYACHOTY ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. 6. SMT SHAIK NASEEB JAN, W/O. SHAIK ABDUL SALAM, R/O. D.NO.40/47-B-H, BOSE NAGAR, RAYACHOTY, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. SITA RAM CHAPARLA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. P SUBASH The Court made the following: 5 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH WRIT PETITION Nos.33546 and 22309 of 2025 COMMON ORDER: Writ Petition No.33546 of 2025 is filed declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in not deciding the petitioners’ suspension petition filed in revision petition dated 22.11.2025 filed under Section 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents. 3. While pending the revision before the 3rd respondent, the respondent authorities, more specifically the 6th respondent- Tahsildar, has mutated the names of respondent Nos.7 to 12 in the revenue records contrary to the orders dated 02.04.2025 passed by the 4th respondent. Questioning the said action, W.P.No.22309 of 2025 is filed. 4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the 3rd respondent has not entertained the revision filed by the 6 petitioners and not decided the interim application and while pending the revision, the 6th respondent ought not to have mutated the names of respondent Nos.7 to 12 in the revenue records contrary to the orders passed by the 4th respondent on 02.04.2025. 5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader is not able to place any record with regard to the action of the 6th respondent contrary to the orders passed by the 4th respondent on 02.04.2025 and also not able to place any record in compliance of Form-VIII notice as mandated by the Full Bench of this Court in Chinnam Pandurangam v. Mandal Revenue Officer, Serilingampally Mandal1. 6. Considering the said submissions, both the Writ Petitions are disposed of directing the 3rd respondent to consider the revision filed by the petitioners after issuing notice to all concerned and pass appropriate orders within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is needless to mention that till the disposal of the revision petition, the respondents are directed to maintain status quo with regard to 1 2007 SCC OnLine AP 459 7 records by not creating any third party rights. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH Date: 29.12.2025 Ivd 8 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH WRIT PETITION Nos.33546 and 22309 of 2025 Dated: 29.12.2025 Ivd