APHC010255702026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Friday, the nineteenth day of June two thousand and twenty six The Honourable Writ Petition Between: Kanagala Subba Ramaiah and The State of Andhra Pradesh and Counsel for the petitioner: 1. Jada Sravan Kumar Counsel for the respondent 1. G.P. for Revenue The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) the nineteenth day of June two thousand and twenty six Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi Writ Petition No.14402 of 2026 Kanagala Subba Ramaiah f Andhra Pradesh and others ...Respondents etitioner: Jada Sravan Kumar espondents: for Revenue The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3311] the nineteenth day of June two thousand and twenty six Bhanumathi ...Petitioner Respondents 2 BSB, J W.P.No.14402 of 2026 ORDER: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “..to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction of the respondent authorities, particularly respondent No.4, in considering and disposing of the petitioner’s online applications for issuance of online Possession Certificate, as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of the principles of natural justice, and as being infringement of the petitioner’s fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21, as well as his constitutional right to property under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, and consequently direct the respondent authorities to consider and dispose of the petitioner’s applications bearing Application Nos. POC220809000435, dated 09.08.2022, POC221124045876, dated 24.11.2022, POC250425005543, dated 25.04.2025 and POC251206043252, dated 06-12-2025, and issue online Possession Certificate in favour of the petitioner in respect of land situated in Survey No. 99, admeasuring Ac. 0.02 cents, of Mamillapalle village, Chinta Komma Dinne Mandal, Y.S.R. Kadapa District, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court and to pass such other order or orders as this Court may deem fit, just and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 3 BSB, J W.P.No.14402 of 2026 2. The case of the petitioner, briefly stated, is as follows: a. The land situated in Sy. No. 99 admeasuring an extent of Ac. 0.02 cents in Mamillapalle village, Chinta Komma Dinne Mandal, Y.S.R. Kadapa District, has been lawfully recognized as being in possession and enjoyment of the petitioner by the competent revenue authorities. Accordingly, the petitioner was issued a Manual Possession Certificate vide No. 223/1428, dated 17.07.2019, followed by an enjoyment certificate vide Rc. No. C/268/2025, dated 10.06.2025. The said certificates have neither been cancelled nor modified by any competent authority and they are valid and subsisting. Thus, the petitioner is legally entitled to issuance of an Online Possession Certificate and the failure of the respondent authorities to recognize and formalize the same through the online system is wholly unjustified and contrary to law. b. The respondent authorities are statutorily bound to process and decide applications for issuance of Online Possession Certificate within a reasonable time and the failure of the respondent authorities to consider and dispose of the petitioner’s applications for issuance of Online Possession Certificate has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner. The respondent authorities are therefore, under a legal obligation to verify the existing records, ensure faithful reflection of the petitioner’s possession in the online portal and process the petitioner’s applications in accordance with law. 3. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue placed on record a copy of the written instructions of the respondent No. 4, dated 15.06.2026, stating that four (4) applications submitted by the petitioner online had been rejected with reasons and that no application 4 BSB, J W.P.No.14402 of 2026 of the petitioner for issuance of possession certificate is pending before the respondent No. 4. It is further stated that since Chinta Komma Dinne Mandal is presently within the limits of the Municipal Corporation in terms of G.O.Ms. No. 546, Revenue (Assignment-I) Department, dated 30.06.1997, the competent authority for issuance of a possession certificate in respect of the land situated within the municipal corporation limits is the Revenue Divisional Officer and not the Tahsildar. 4. Sri A. Tarun Kumar, learned counsel representing the counsel for the petitioner submitted that rejection remarks mentioned in the online portal are not speaking orders and that the application(s) may be forwarded to the Revenue Divisional Officer if the Tahsildar is not competent to issue possession certificate. 5. As per the written instructions, the details of the applications submitted by the petitioner and the remarks passed thereon are as follows: Transaction ID – POC221124045876 District Name Mandal Name Secretariat Name Service Name Citizen Name SLA Status YSR KADAPA Kadapa MAMILLA- PALLI-01 Possession Certificate Kanagala Subba Ramaiah 15 days Rejected (Applicant does not have the registered document of the land) Transaction ID – POC220809000435 YSR KADAPA Kadapa MAMILLA- PALLI-01 Possession Certificate Kanagala Subba Ramaiah 15 days Rejected (Applicant is not in possession of the mentioned land) Transaction ID – POC250425005543 YSR KADAPA Kadapa MAMILLA- PALLI-01 Possession Certificate Kanagala Subba Ramaiah 15 days Rejected (Applicant is not in possession of the mentioned land) Transaction ID – POC251206043252 YSR KADAPA Kadapa MAMILLA- PALLI-01 Possession Certificate Kanagala Subba Ramaiah 15 days Rejected (Documents not available – Application form) 5 BSB, J W.P.No.14402 of 2026 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed on record the copies of the online information in respect of the applications submitted by the petitioner. They are more than four (4) in number. 7. Since the competent authority is the Revenue Divisional Officer, this Court is not going into the details that the orders shown online are not speaking orders. The petitioner can submit a fresh application to the Revenue Divisional Officer, who is the competent authority. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to submit a fresh application to the Revenue Divisional Officer concerned through the required process. Thereupon, a speaking order shall be passed after giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ B. S. BHANUMATHI, J Dt.19.06.2026 RAR