SRI SONTEM PRABHAKAR REDDY v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
WP/14372/2026 · 2026-06-14
B S Bhanumathi
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 2990 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 2990 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
APHC010270192026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Monday, the Fifteenth day of June Two Thousand and Twenty Six The Honourable Writ Petition Between: Sri Sontem Prabhakar Reddy 60 years, Occ: Employee, R/o Sivalayam, Avilala, Tirupati Rural, Tirupati District. and
1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. The District Collector, Annamayya District, at Madanapalli
3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Madanapalli Revenue Division, Annamayya District
4. The Tahsildar, Ramapuram Mandal, Annamayya District
5. The Gram Panchayat, Kummarapalli, rep. by its Panchayat Secretary, Bandlapalli Revenue Village, Ramapuram Mandal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) the Fifteenth day of June Two Thousand and Twenty Six Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi Writ Petition No.14372 of 2026 Sri Sontem Prabhakar Reddy, S/o. Sontem Subba Reddy, Aged about 60 years, Occ: Employee, R/o. Flat No.305, Cross Wind Apartment, Sivalayam, Avilala, Tirupati Rural, Tirupati District. of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati,
The District Collector, Annamayya District, at Madanapalli The Revenue Divisional Officer, Madanapalli Revenue Division, District. The Tahsildar, Ramapuram Mandal, Annamayya District The Gram Panchayat, Kummarapalli, rep. by its Panchayat Secretary, Bandlapalli Revenue Village, Ramapuram Mandal …Respondents IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3311] the Fifteenth day of June Two Thousand and Twenty Six Bhanumathi Sontem Subba Reddy, Aged about Flat No.305, Cross Wind Apartment, …Petitioner
of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, The District Collector, Annamayya District, at Madanapalli. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Madanapalli Revenue Division, The Tahsildar, Ramapuram Mandal, Annamayya District. The Gram Panchayat, Kummarapalli, rep. by its Panchayat Secretary, Bandlapalli Revenue Village, Ramapuram Mandal. …Respondents
2 BSB, J W.P.No.14372 of 2026
Counsel for the petitioner:
1. Ayesha Azma. S
Counsel for the respondents:
1. G.P. for Revenue
The Court made the following:
3 BSB, J W.P.No.14372 of 2026 ORDER:
This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed seeking the following relief:
“..to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents, specifically respondent No.3 in considering the representation, dated 24.06.2025, seeking to change the classification of the land in Sy.
No. 539/1B to an extent of Ac.1.61 cents of Bandlapalle Village from “Grama Kantam” to “Patta”, delete the same from the Section 22-A prohibitory list, as arbitrary, illegal, unjust, and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to change the classification of the land in Sy. No. 539/1B to an extent of 1.61 acres of Bandlapalle village from “Grama Kantam” to “Patta”, delete the same from the Section 22-A prohibitory list and pass such other order or orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”
2. The case of the petitioner, is briefly, as follows: a. The family of the petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of agricultural property of Ac.1.61 cents in Sy. No. 539/1B of Bandlapalle revenue village, Kummarapalli Gram Panchayat, Ramapuram Mandal, Annamayya district. It is their ancestral property. It was purchased by their grandfather, late Sri Mukkoti Narayana Reddy, under a registered sale deed bearing document No.174 of 1917, dated 19.01.1917. The petitioner recently came to know that the
4 BSB, J W.P.No.14372 of 2026 revenue authorities, without issuing any notice or conducting physical enquiry and giving an opportunity to the petitioner, erroneously classified the subject land as Grama kantam vide L.P.M.No.479 in the online webland records and adangals and further kept the property in the list of prohibited properties under Section 22-A of the Indian Registration Act, 1908. The petitioner made several requests, including application No. ANMY202502251065 on 25.02.2025 through Meekosam / PGRS portal. The petitioner further submitted a detailed representation through registered post to the respondent No. 4 / Tahsildar on 27.02.2025, the respondent No.2 / District Collector on 27.02.2025 and 19.08.2025 and to the respondent No. 3 / Revenue Divisional Officer on 24.06.2025.
However, the respondent No.4 issued an endorsement, dated 22.04.2025, vide reference No. PGRS/77/2025 summarily rejecting the request of the petitioner, basing erroneously on the Resettlement Register (R.S.R.) claiming that the total extent of Ac. 4.80 cents in Sy. No. 539/1 is a dotted land and that the old manual adangal for Fasli 1416 shows Sy. No. 539/1B as “Grama Kantam”. However, the respondent No.4 concluded that since there are houses existing on ground, the online entry cannot be mutated in the name of the petitioner. The existence of house does not extinguish the title of the original owner and the land classified as “Grama Kantam” does not automatically vest with the government. 3. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, basing on the impugned endorsement of the Tahsildar / respondent No. 4, dated 22.04.2025, submitted that the petitioner has to approach the District Collector, who alone is competent to change the classification of the land. 5 BSB, J W.P.No.14372 of 2026
4. In view of the same, the learned counsel for the petitioner, being represented by Sri Shaik Asif, learned counsel, requested to dispose of the writ petition giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the District Collector for the same relief and directing the District Collector to decide the matter after giving the petitioner an opportunity of placing the evidence and hearing. 5. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of, granting liberty as aforesaid. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ B. S. BHANUMATHI, J Dt.15.06.2026 RAR