APHC010219062018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3459] THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION No.9531/2018 Between: 1. M SUDHAKAR, M.SUDHAKAR, S/O M.MUNASWAMY NAIDU, AGE 54 YEARS, R/O K.V.PURAM VILLAGE AND POST, VIJAYAPURAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, CHITTOOR. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH REP., BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (REVENUE), SECRETARIAT, AMARAVATHI. AMARAVATHI. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, CHITOOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT 517002. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, CHITOOR DIVISION, CHITTOR 517002. 4. THE TAHSILDHAR, VIJAYAPURAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, PIN 517586. 5. P SYAMALAMMA, W/O P.SUBRAMANYAM AGED 52 YEARS, OCC- BUSINESS, R/O 19-4-121E/2B, S.T.V NAGAR, TIRUPATI, CHITTOOR. ...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 to issue an appropriate writ or direction or order more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chittor in 2 D.Dis.No.G/9819/2014 dated 03-02-2018 as illegal arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 300-A, of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same, which is against the principle of natural justice. IA NO: 1 OF 2018 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 to suspend all further proceedings in pursuance of order dated 03-02-2018 in file No. D.Dis.G/9819/2014 passed by Revenue Divisional Officer, Chittoor, till the disposal of the Civil Suit in O.S.No.23/2014 and claim petition in O.E.P.No.29/2011 in O.S.No.29/2009 and pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. PALLA BALU ANIL KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE (AP) 2. G V S MEHAR KUMAR The Court made the following 3 ORDER: The matter was listed on 27.01.2026, but there was no representation for the petitioner. Consequently, the matter was directed to be listed after two (2) weeks. On 10.02.2026, when the matter was listed, learned counsel for the petitioner sought an adjournment; thus, the matter was directed to be listed after two (2) weeks under the caption of ‘For Orders’. When the matter appeared under the caption of ‘For Orders’, on that date i.e., on 26.02.2026, there was no representation for the petitioner and it was directed to be listed under the caption of ‘For Dismissal’. Even today, when the matter appeared under the caption of ‘For Dismissal’, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. 2. Sri G.V.S. Mehar Kumar, learned counsel for the un-official respondent, fairly submitted that the name of the un-official respondent was reflected/mutated in the revenue records. Additionally, the Suit filed by the petitioner i.e., O.S. No.23 of 2014 was dismissed on merits and the petitioner has not preferred an Appeal. Since the name of the un-official respondent is already mutated in the revenue records, the learned counsel for the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the matter. 3. Based on the submission made by learned counsel for the un- official respondent, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM Date:05.03.2026 DSH