APHC010114322026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3233] SATURDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN WRIT PETITION NO: 6439/2026 Between: 1. U LINGANNA @ LINGAIAH, S/O LATE U. THIKKAPPA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS OLD, OCC AGRICULTURIST, RIO SIDDAPURAM VILLAGE AND POST, HALAHARVAIMANDALAM, ALUR TALUK, KURNOOL DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REPRESENTED BY ITS, PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, HALAHARVI MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT.518 348 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, HALAHARVAI MANDAL AT KURNOOL DISTRICT. 518 348 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KURNOOL DISTRICT AT KURNOOL.518 001 5. U NINGAPPA, S/O U. LATE NAGAMMA, AGED ABOUT 39 OLD, OCC AGRICULTURIST, RIO SIDDAPURAM VILLAGE AND POST,HALAHARVAI MANDAL, ALUR TALUK, KURNOOL DISTRICT,518 348 ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 BKM,J W.P.No.6439 of 2026 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 WRIT OF CERTIORARI calling for the entire records related to the Proceedings issued by the 2nd Respondent Tahsildar vide proceedings Rc.No.B/144/2025 dated 19.01.2026, examine and consequentially quash the same after declaring it illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, without jurisdiction and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution of India, and to 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 dispense from filling certified copy of Proceedings issued by the 2nd Respondent Tahsildar vide proceedings Rc.No.B/144/2025 dated 19.01.2026,pending disposal of the main 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 suspend the operation of the Proceedings issued by the 2nd Respondent Tahsildar vide proceedings Rc.No.B/144/2025 dated 19.01.2026, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SANKU DURGA RAMACHANDRA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 3 BKM,J W.P.No.6439 of 2026 The Court made the following Order: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 4. 2. The issuance of notice to the 5th respondent is dispensed with as no prejudice would cause to him even if it is disposed of in his absence. 3. This writ petition is filed questioning the order of the 2nd respondent dated 19.01.2026, which is as under:- “In view of the above, the land in Sy.No.15-A extent 0.84 cents out of 1.68 acres of Siddapuram Village, Halaharvi Mandal assigned in the name of Late Uppari Nagamma W/o. Late Uppari Narasappa Vide CC.No.2338/ALR/75, Dt. .10.1998 got mutated by Uppari Lingappa S/o Thikkaiah is hereby restored in favour of Sri Uppari Ningappa S/o Late Uppari Nagamma W/o.Uppari Narasappa, the assignee herein is hereby restored under section 4 (1) (b) (ii) of A.P Assigned Lands POT Act 1977.” 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the unofficial respondent filed the Civil Suit for injunction and the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the subject land and without appreciating the facts and the legal position, the 2nd respondent directed for mutation of the name of the unofficial respondent herein in respect of the subject land in an extent of Ac.0.84 cents out of Ac.1.68 cents in Sy.No.15-A of Siddapuram Village, Halaharvi Mandal, Kurnool District by canceling the mutation of the petitioner herein. 4 BKM,J W.P.No.6439 of 2026 5. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 4 submits that the petitioner has got an effective alternative remedy of appeal before the 3rd respondent, which can be preferred within 90 days from the date of receipt of the said impugned order of the 2nd respondent dated 19.01.2026. If so preferred, the same would be considered by the said authority, following the due procedure. 6. In view of the above said facts and circumstances, the petitioner is permitted to prefer an appeal before the 3rd respondent against the order of the 2nd respondent dated 19.01.2026 within a period of limitation, enclosing all the necessary documents in support of his claim. On receipt of such appeal from the petitioner, the 3rd respondent shall consider and dispose of the same, strictly in accordance with law, by hearing all the parties concerned, including the petitioner and the unofficial respondent/respondent No.5, 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 four (04) months thereafter. Till filing of the above said appeal by the petitioner within the period of limitation only, there shall be an order of status quo as on today to be maintained with respect to the mutation of names over the subject land covered under the impugned order of the 2nd respondent dated 19.01.2026. Further, if any interim relief is required in the appeal, the same can be moved before the Appellate Authority by the parties concerned and if so, the same shall be considered on its own merits. 5 BKM,J W.P.No.6439 of 2026 7. 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 07.03.2026 PGT