APHC010023942026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3558] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA WRIT APPEAL No.53 of 2026 Between: 1. K RAMAKRISHNA REDDY, S/O K. BAYAPA REDDY. RETD. SUB-POST MASTER, R/O EAGUVAPALLI VILLAGE, GARLADINNE MANDAL, ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT AND 1. PATEL RANI, W/O LATE PATEL PADMANABHA REDDY, R/O. PLOT. NO. 127, HASTHINAPURAMU CENTRAL, SAROOR NAGAR MANDAL, HYDERABAD, TALAGANA STATE. 2. KUMARI PATEL ANUSHA, D/O LATE PATEL PADMANABHA REDDY, R/O. PLOT. NO. 127, HASTHINAPURAMU CENTRAL, SAROOR NAGAR MANDAL, HYDERABAD, TALAGANA STATE. ...RESPONDENTS/WRIT PETITIONERS. 3. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ANATHAPURAMU DISTRICT. 5. THE DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER, ANANTAPURAM DISTRICT. 2 CMR,J & GTK,J W.A.No.53 of 2026 6. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ANANTHAPURAMU. 7. THE TAHSILDAR, GARLADINNE MANDAL, ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Appellant: 1. S KRISHNA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. K SRINIVAS The Court made the following: 3 CMR,J & GTK,J W.A.No.53 of 2026 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA WRIT APPEAL No.53 of 2026 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy) Assailing the order dated 27.11.2025 of the learned single Judge passed in W.P.No.21302 of 2025, whereby the learned single Judge has disposed of the writ petition, without going into the merits of the case, with a direction to the 4th respondent-Tahsildar therein to consider the application filed by the writ petitioners under Section 5(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971, by conducting an enquiry after issuing notice to the writ petitioners and also to the 5th respondent therein and then to pass appropriate orders, the present writ appeal has been filed by the 5th respondent in the writ petition. 2. Heard Mr. S. Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. K. Srinivas, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2/writ petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for official respondent Nos.3 to 7. 3. The parties will be referred as they are arrayed in the writ petition for the sake of convenience. 4. The grievance of the writ petitioners is that the name of the 5th respondent has been wrongly incorporated in the revenue records in respect of the land in an extent of Ac.2.41 cents and Ac.2.59 cents covered by Sy.Nos.235 and 238 respectively situated at Eaguvapalli Village in Ananthapuramu District and that though they have filed an application before the 4th respondent - Tahsildar, no orders have been 4 CMR,J & GTK,J W.A.No.53 of 2026 passed thereon. Therefore, they have filed the writ petition for a Mandamus to declare the inaction of the 4th respondent - Tahsildar in passing appropriate orders to delete the name of the 5th respondent in the revenue records in respect of the subject land and to incorporate the names of the petitioners in the revenue records in respect of the said land. 5. After hearing both the parties, the learned single Judge has disposed of the writ petition, without deciding anything on merits, with a direction to the 4th respondent - Tahsildar to consider the application filed by the writ petitioners under Section 5(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for shot, ‘the Act’), by conducting an enquiry after issuing notice to the writ petitioners as well as the 5th respondent, and to pass appropriate orders within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. 6. The said order is now challenged by the 5th respondent on the ground that his name was incorporated in the revenue records in respect of the subject land long back about 25 years ago and the same cannot be now deleted and also on the ground that some civil suits are pending in respect of the said land and the Tahsildar cannot decide title in respect of the said land. 7. The 5th respondent can take the said objections before the Tahsildar during the enquiry to be conducted on the application filed by the writ petitioners under Section 5(1) of the Act, as the learned single Judge has directed the Tahsildar to conduct an enquiry, after issuing notice to the writ petitioners and the 5th respondent, and then to pass appropriate orders according to law. So, no prejudice is caused to the 5th respondent on account of the said order passed by the learned 5 CMR,J & GTK,J W.A.No.53 of 2026 single Judge. The 5th respondent is at liberty to file his objections after receiving notice from the Tahsildar and to take all the said pleas which are now urged before this Court in the enquiry to be conducted by the Tahsildar. The Tahsildar has to consider the said objections taken by the 5th respondent/appellant and then pass appropriate orders on the application filed by the writ petitioners under Section 5(1) of the Act according to law. 8. Therefore, we do not see any valid legal ground warranting interference in this appeal with the impugned order of the learned single Judge. 9. In fine, the writ appeal is dismissed with the above observations. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, in this case shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY ______________________________________ JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA Date: 23.01.2026 IBL 6 CMR,J & GTK,J W.A.No.53 of 2026 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA WRIT APPEAL No.53 of 2026 Dt: 23.01.2026 IBL