APHC010001382026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3524] THURSDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT APPEAL NO: 4/2026 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent appellant/respondent Nb.S herein begs to present this memorandum of Writ Appeal against the order of the Learned Single Judge passed in I.A. No.1/2025 in W.R No. 34987 of 2025 dated 16-12-2025 for the following among the other Between: 1. P RAJASEKHAR, S/O. P.R.PRATAP, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, WORKING AS TAHSILDAR, SATYAVEDU MANDAL, TIRUPATHI DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT AND 1. V RAGHUPATHI REDDY, S/O. RAMADASU REDDY, AGE 72 YEARS, R/O. REPALLEWADA VILLAGE, SATYAVEDU MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT/WRIT PETITIONER 2. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, A. P.SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TIRUPATHI DISTRICT, TIRUPATI. 4. 4. THE JOINTCOLLECTOR, TIRUPATHI DISTRICT, TIRUPATI. 2 5. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, SULLURPET, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. 6.. 6. THE TAHSILDAR, SATYAVEDU, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. 7. 7. EMANI VENKATA PHANINDRA SATYA KRISHNA, S/O. EMANI DATTATREYA SARRNA, R/O. PLOT NO.13, MARUTI NURSING HOME, SHOBANA COLONY, WEST MAREDPALLI, SECUNDERABAD, TELANGANA STATE 8. K JAGADEESH, JUNIOR ASSISTANT-CUM-COMPUTER OPERATOR, O/O. TAHSILDAR, SATYAVEDU MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. 9. RAGHAVENDRA, VILLAGE REVENUE OFFICER, VANELLURU VILLAGE, SATYAVEDU MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. 10. B RAJESH, S/O. KATAIAH, AGE 40 YEARS, R/O. VANELLURU HARIJANAWADA VILLAGE, SATYAVEDU MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. 11. B TAMILARASSU, S/O. KRISHNAIAH, AGE 45 YEARS, R/O. VANNELLURU HARIJANAWADA VILLAGE SATYAVEDU MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. 12. B IMMANUEL, S/O. KRISHNAIAH, AGE 38 YEARS, R/O. VANNELURU HARIJANAWADA VILLAGE, SATYAVEDU MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Appellant: 1. S SRAVANA SANDHYA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. G R SUDHAKAR The Court made the following: 3 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari) Heard Sri S.Lakshminarayana Reddy, learned counsel representing Ms.S.Sravana Sandhya, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri G.R.Sudhakar, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent, the writ petitioner. 2. W.P.No.34987 of 2025 was filed by the 1st respondent herein, raising the grievance that the 5th respondent in the writ petition i.e. the Tahsildar, Satyavedu, Tirupati District, also made as party by name as 6th respondent in the writ petition, unilaterally mutated the name of the 7th respondent in the writ petition, with respect to the land in question. In the said matter, in spite of the writ petitioner approaching the authority, no action had been taken, neither the criminal proceedings was initiated nor any enquiry was conducted. 3. Considering the said submission, the learned Single Judge passed the following interim order: “ The learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to take out personal notice to the respondent Nos. 6 to 12 through RPAD and file proof of service before the registry. The contention of the petitioner is that the 5th respondent has unilaterally mutated the name of the 7th respondent in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.1.23 cents in Sy.No.254/2 situated at Vanelluru Village, Satyavedu Mandal,Tirupati District. It is further contended that the inaction of respondent Nos.1 to 4 in not initiating any departmental enquiry against respondent Nos.5, 6, 8 and 9, and in not taking any criminal action against respondent Nos.7 to 12 for allegedly forging and fabricating a title deed, is illegal and arbitrary. 4 In view of the above, the respondents are directed to conduct an enquiry and submit a report along with a counter affidavit. Post the matter after four (04) weeks.” 4. Challenging the said order, the present writ appeal has been filed by the 6th respondent in the writ petition. 5. Sri S.Lakshminarayana Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant submits that in fact, the enquiry had been conducted, even prior to filing of the writ petition but the said fact was not brought on record of the writ petition by the writ petitioner. He refers to Ex.P23 at page No.128 of the material papers, and submits that if the writ appellant had been given the opportunity in the writ petition, the said fact could have been brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge and then there would have been no occasion to pass the interim order directing the respondents in writ petition to hold enquiry and submit report with the counter-affidavit. He further submits that for the same reason, any fresh enquiry in terms of the interim order is not required to be taken. 6. Considering the aforesaid submissions, we are of the view that the writ petition is still pending, in which the time has been granted to the respondents therein to file counter-affidavit though along with the report. The writ appellant has an opportunity to file the counter-affidavit and to bring on record all the relevant facts with 5 material in the writ petition, including the alleged enquiry report as annexed to the writ appeal. He may also file an appropriate application, as may be advised, for modification or vacation of the interim order dated 16.12.2025 or for stay of the order dated 16.12.2025 in the writ petition itself. 7. For the aforesaid reason, without observing anything with reference to alleged enquiry report (Ex.P23), we are not inclined to entertain the Writ Appeal at this stage. 8. The Writ Appeal is disposed of with the aforesaid observations. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI, J ______________________________ MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM, J Date: 08.01.2026 Pab 6 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT APPEAL NO: 4/2026 DATE: 08.01.2026 Pab