Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 18677 (AP)

SYED NAZEER AHAMMAD v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

WP/6303/2025 · 2026-02-24

B Krishna Mohan

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010117892025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3233] WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN WRIT PETITION NO: 6303/2025 Between: 1. SYED NAZEER AHAMMAD, S/O KHADAR BHASHA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS OCC BUSINESS PORUMAMILLA VILLAGE MANDAL YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP,BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI AMARAVATI GUNTUR DISTRICT. ICT 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 3. THE SUB COLLECTOR REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MARKAPURAM PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 4. THETAHSILDAR, YARRAGONDAPALEM MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTR ...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 an appropriate writ order or orders or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declaring the inaction of the respondents No 2 to 4 in not disposing the of the petitioner Representation dt 16.11.2024, 30.12.2024 17.1.2025 to mutate the petitioner name in the Revenue records by rectifying the wrong entry names and its correction in Sy.no. 162/1 Ac. 11.45 cents and Sy.No. 162/2 Ac.0.08 cents 2 BKM,J W.P.No.6303 of 2025 and for an extent of Ac.8.26 Cents in Sy.No.161 for the total extent of Ac. 19.79 cents at Millam Palli village Yarragondapalem Mandal Prakasam district is highly illegal arbitrary violation of Articles 14 21 and 300(A) of the Constitution of India and also violation of the ROR Act and also violation of the principles of natural justice consequently direct the respondents to dispose of the petitioner Representation dt 16.11.2024, 30.12.2024 17.1.2025 to mutate the petitioner name in the Revenue records by rectifying the wrong entry names and its correction in Sy.no. 162/1 Ac. 11.45 cents and Sy.no. 162/2 Ac.0.08 cents and for an extent of Ac.8.26 Cents in Sy.No. 161 for the total extent of Ac. 19.79 cents at Millam Palli village Yarragonda Palem Mandal Prakasam district and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 respondents to dispose of the petitioner Representation dt 16.11.2024, 30.12.2024 17.1.2025 to mutate the petitioner name in the Revenue records by rectifying the wrong entry names and its correction in Sy.no. 162/1 Ac. 11.45 cents and Sy.no. 162/2 Ac.0.08 cents and for an extent of Ac.8.26 Cents in Sy.No. 161 for the total extent of Ac. 19.79 cents at Millam Palli village Yarragonda Palem Mandal Prakasam district pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. JESHTADI SUNIL KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 3 BKM,J W.P.No.6303 of 2025 The Court made the following Order: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents. 2. This writ petition was filed questioning the action of the respondent Nos.2 to 4 in not disposing of the representations of the petitioner dated 16.11.2024, 30.12.2024 and 17.01.2025 to mutate the name of the petitioner in the Revenue records by rectifying the wrong entry names and its correction to an extent of Ac.11.45 in Sy.No.162/1 and an extent of Ac.0.08 cents in Sy.No.162/2 cents and an extent of Ac.8.26 cents in Sy.No.161, in total an extent of Ac.19.79 cents at Millam Palli Village, Yarragondapalem Mandal, Prakasam District. 3. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader relying upon the written instructions of the 4th respondent dated 16.03.2025 submits that the petitioner’s several representations made before the respondent Nos.2 to 4 were considered. After thorough enquiry, the 4th respondent issued the endorsement to the petitioner to settle the matter in Civil Court or file revision petition on the orders of the ROR appeal order passed by the 3rd respondent dated 20.06.2023 on the grievance applications dated 17.12.2024, 24.12.2024 and 06.01.2025 raised by the petitioner in Public Grievance Redressal System. The said proceedings of the 3rd respondent dated 20.06.2023 are also submitted along with the written instructions. 4 BKM,J W.P.No.6303 of 2025 4. In view of the above said facts and circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of observing that no further orders are necessary in this writ petition. However, liberty is given to the petitioner to assail the proceedings/order of the 3rd respondent dated 20.06.2023, if so aggrieved and warranted and if so advised in accordance with law. The said instructions of the 4th respondent dated 16.03.2025 shall be made as part of the Court record. 5. 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 25.02.2026 PGT