APHC010058972026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3233] THURSDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN WRIT PETITION NO: 3367/2026 Between: 1. K VENKATANARAYANA, S/O LATE PEDDA CHINTAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O SANKEPALII VILLAGE, MUDIGUBBA MARIDAL, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT- 515511 2. K. CHINNA CHINTHAPPA,, S/O LATE G. RAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS. AGRICULTURIST, R/O SANKEPALII VILLAGE, MUDIGUBBA MANDAL, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT- 515511 3. K. NARAYANAPPA, , S/O LATE G. RAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS. AGRICULTURIST, R/O SANKEPALII VILLAGE, MUDIGUBBA MANDAL SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT- 515511 ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, REP., BY IT'S PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, , SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, DHARMAVARAM, SRI SATHYA SAI DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, MUDIGUBBA MANDAL, SRI SATHYA SAI DISTRICT. 5. SAKE ADEPPA, S/O NAGAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS OCCU AGRICULTURE R/O SANKEAPALLI VILLAGE SC COLONY 2 HBKM,J W.P.No.3367 of 2026 MUDIGUBBA MANDAL SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT-515511 6. RAMU, S/O NARAYANA AGE 32 YEARS R/O SANKEAPALLI VILLAGE SC COLONY MUDIGUBBA MANDAL SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT- 515511 ...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 a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the Order passed in Rc.No.76/2025 dated 05.12.2025 by the 4th Respondent is arbitrary, illegal, one without jurisdiction, contrary to A.P Rights in Land Pattadar Passbook Act, 1971 and Rules and violation of Articles 14,19,21 and 300A of the constitution and consequently set-aside the same and direct the 4TH Respondent not to dispossess the petitioners from the land admeasuring Ac8.31 cents in Sy.No.255-1 A, situated at Sankepalli Village, Mudigubba Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to suspend the order passed by the 4th Respondent in Rc.No.76/2025 dated 05.12.2025, pending disposal of the writ petition and to pass IA NO: 2 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to direct the 4th Respondent not to dispossess the petitioners from the land admeasuring Ac8.31 cents in Sy.No.255-1A, situated at Sankepalli Village, Mudigubba Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District, pending disposal of the writ petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. P SRAVAN KUMAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 3 HBKM,J W.P.No.3367 of 2026 The Court made the following Order: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 4. 2. The issuance of notices to the respondent Nos.5 and 6 is dispensed with as no prejudice would cause to them, even if it is disposed of in their absence. 3. This writ petition is filed questioning the speaking orders of the 4th respondent dated 05.12.2025, giving due opportunity to the petitioners herein to prove their genuineness on the subject land pursuant to the orders of this Court in W.P.No.5073 of 2025 dated 13.08.2025 on the complaint said to have been made by the unofficial respondents herein, the above said impugned speaking orders were issued by the 4th respondent dated 05.12.2025, which is nothing but in the form of a notice giving opportunity to the petitioners to submit their cases. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that pursuant to the above said impugned speaking order dated 05.12.2025, the petitioners also submitted the detailed explanation dated 15.12.2025 and the same is not considered. 5. He further submits that even the Tahsildar has no jurisdiction to entertain such application against the petitioners. 4 HBKM,J W.P.No.3367 of 2026 6. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 4 submits that it is only a notice issued and opportunity is given to the petitioners to submit their explanation and if so submitted, the same would be considered by the 4th respondent, following the due procedure. 7. In view of the above said facts and circumstances, the petitioners are also permitted to submit their additional explanation, if any, enclosing all the necessary documents in support of their claim by raising all the objections both on facts and law within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. On receipt of such additional explanation from the petitioners, considering the earlier explanation dated 15.12.2025 and the additional explanation of the petitioners, if any, the 4th respondent shall proceed with the necessary enquiry, pursuant to the above said impugned order dated 05.12.2025, strictly in accordance with law, by hearing all the parties concerned, including the petitioners and the unofficial respondent Nos.5 and 6, giving due opportunity, upon verification of the records and the subject land, appropriate decision shall be taken on its own merits as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three (03) months thereafter. Pending the enquiry, there shall be an order of status quo as on today to be maintained with respect to the subject land covered under the impugned order of the 4th respondent dated 05.12.2025. 5 HBKM,J W.P.No.3367 of 2026 8. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of. Interim order if any deemed to have been vacated. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE B. KRISHNA MOHAN 05.02.2026 PGT