APHC010719912025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3233] MONDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN WRIT PETITION NO: 770/2026 Between: 1. GADDIPALLI RAMAKRISHNA, S/O AMMORU, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCC PVT.EMPLOYEE, RIO D.NO 6-108, RUSHIKONDA, NEAR GITAM COLLEGE, VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-530045. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 52223 7 2. THE DIRECTOR COLLECTOR, VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 530001 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, REVENUE DIVISION, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 530001 4. THE TAHSILDAR, VISAKHAPATNAM RURAL MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH. ...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 mandamus, declaring the inaction of 2 the Respondents No.2 to 4 in not considering my representation dated 25.11.2025 submitted to Respondent No.4 and F-Line Application No.FSNV012500864888 dated 22.11.2025 as illegal, arbitrary and amounts to abdication of statutory duties cast up on them and also violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents 2 to 4 to conduct a comprehensive survey of the unsold property and updating the petitioner's name in the 1B-Online entries bearing Survey No.56- 11, Patta No.61, an extent of Ac 0.37 cents situated in Chinnagadili Mandal, Rushikonda Revenue Village, Visakhapatnam District by considering my representation dated 25.11.2025 submitted to Respondent No.4 and F-Line Application No.FSNV012500864888 dated 22.11.2025 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 direct the Respondents 2 to 4 to consider my representation dated 25.11.2025 submitted to Respondent No.4 and F- Line Application No. FSNV012500864888 dated 22.11.2025 pending disposal of writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. VENKATA MOHAN RAO PATHAKOTA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 3 The Court made the following Order: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents. 2. This writ petition was filed questioning the action of the respondent Nos.2 to 4 in not considering the representation of the petitioner dated 25.11.2025 submitted to the 4th respondent and F-Line Application No.FSNV012500864888 dated 22.11.2025. 3. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader relying upon the written instructions from the 4th respondent dated 09.02.2026 submits that the petitioner submitted F-Line application through Sachivalayam dated 22.11.2025 specifically for Sy.No.56-5A of Rushikonda Village but not Sy.No.56-11. The said F-Line application was duly received and processed by the office of the Tahsildar, Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal. The field verification was conducted by the Mandal Surveyor of the office of the 4th respondent with reference to the village records and ground position. The Mandal Surveyor categorically reported that the land shown by the petitioner does not fall within Sy.No.56-5A, for which the F-Line application was filed and the petitioner is not in physical possession of the land shown by him including the land claimed in Sy.No.56-11. Basing on the said survey report, the Deputy Tahsildar, Visakhapatnam Rural issued an endorsement dated 09.12.2025 stating that the boundaries could not be 4 shown and survey could not be done, as the land claimed by the petitioner was not under his physical possession. Thus, the petitioner’s F-Line application was considered, verified on the ground and disposed of in accordance with law and the decision was duly communicated. 4. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the copy of the endorsement dated 09.12.2025 was not received. 5. In view of the above said facts and circumstances, no relief can be granted in this writ petition as no cause survives. The copy of the endorsement dated 09.12.2025 of the Deputy Tahsildar, Visakhapatnam Rural may be sent again to the petitioner. It can be collected by the petitioner also. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. The written instructions of the 4th respondent dated 09.02.2026 shall be made as part of the court record. Interim order, if any, deemed to have been vacated. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________ JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN 09.02.2026 NNN