Date of reserved for orders : ------ Date of pronouncement : 23.06.2026 Date of uploading : 30.06.2026 APHC010019722018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH TUESDAY,THE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 1097 of 2018 Between: 1. T.K.KRISHNAMACHARYULU, OCC PUJARI, R/O.H.NO.1 RANGANATHA SWAMY TEMPLE, R.P.ROAD, SECUNDERABAD. 1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, HYDERABAD. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT AT NELLORE. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, SAIDAPURAM MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 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 a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents particularly the 3rd respondent and its officials in trying to dispossess the petitioner by way of interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment over the lands admeasuring Ac.1-90 cents in sy.no. 1 ------ Date of pronouncement : 23.06.2026 .06.2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 1097 of 2018 T.K.KRISHNAMACHARYULU, OCC PUJARI, R/O.H.NO.1 RANGANATHA SWAMY TEMPLE, R.P.ROAD, SECUNDERABAD. ...PETITIONER AND STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT AT THE TAHSILDAR, SAIDAPURAM MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE ...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 a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents particularly the 3rd respondent and its officials in trying to dispossess the petitioner by way of interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment over the lands 90 cents in sy.no.13/2C, admeasuring Ac.1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3333] TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JUNE THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA T.K.KRISHNAMACHARYULU, OCC PUJARI, R/O.H.NO.1-8-450, RANGANATHA SWAMY TEMPLE, R.P.ROAD, SECUNDERABAD. ...PETITIONER STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. ...PETITIONER STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT AT THE TAHSILDAR, SAIDAPURAM MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE ESPONDENT(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 a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents particularly the 3rd respondent and its officials in trying to dispossess the petitioner by way of interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment over the lands 13/2C, admeasuring Ac.1-36 cents in 2 sy.no.13/3B, admeasuring Ac.1-68 cents in sy.no.17/1B and land admeasuring Ac.2-00 cents in sy.no.52/2G, situated at Zaflapuram Village, Saidapuram Mandal, SPSR Nellore District, Andhra Pradesh State, without following due procedure contemplated under law, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, unconstitutional, violation of principles of natural justice and also in violation of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the subject land, without following the procedure contemplated under law, and to pass 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 direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner by way of interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment over the lands admeasuring Ac.1-90 cents in sy.no.13/2C, admeasuring Ac.1-36 cents in sy.no.13/3B, admeasuring Ac.1-68 cents in sy.no.17/1B and land admeasuring Ac.2-00 cents in sy.no.52/2G, situated at Zaflapuram Village, Saidapuram Mandal, SPSR Nellore District, Andhra Pradesh State, without following the procedure contemplated under law, pending disposal of the writ petition, and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. MOHD MOIN AHMED QUADRI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 1097 of 2018 ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of the Respondents particularly the Respondent No.3 and its officials in trying to dispossess the Petitioner by way of interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment over the lands admeasuring Ac.1.90 cents in Sy.No.13/2C, admeasuring Ac.1.36 cents in Sy.No.13/3B, admeasuring Ac.1-68 cents in Sy.No.17/1B, and admeasuring Ac. 2-00 cents in Sy.No.52/2G situated at Zaflapuram Village, Saidapuram Mandal, SPSR Nellore District, without following due procedure contemplated under law, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The Petitioner and his family members are owners and possessors of the land admeasuring Ac.1.90 cents in Sy.No.13/2C, admeasuring Ac.1.36 cents in Sy.No.13/3B, admeasuring Ac.1-68 cents in Sy.No.17/1B, and admeasuring Ac. 2-00 cents in Sy.No.52/2G situated at Zaflapuram Village, Saidapuram Mandal, SPSR Nellore District, having acquired the same by virtue of succession, from his father late Sri T.K.Rangacharyulu. It is the case of the Petitioner that they have been in possession and enjoyment of the subject land. While the matter stood thus, the Petitioner submitted an applications dated 19.04.2017 and 21.08.2017 to the Respondent No.3 seeking mutation of revenue records in their favour by including their names as Pattadars and possessors. Since, the Respondent No.3 did not take any action on their applications, the Petitioner and his family members filed 4 W.P.No.28987 of 2017, which was disposed on 02.11.2017 directing the Respondent No.3 to pass orders on the Petitioners application within two months from the date of receipt of the order and communicate the decision thereon to the Petitioners therein. 3. The grievance of the Petitioner in the present case is that the Respondent No.3 instead of considering the applications submitted by the Petitioner and his family members as per orders of this Court in W.P.No.28987 of 2017, all of a sudden, on 03.01.2018 tried to dispossess the Petitioner by way of interfering with their possession and enjoyment over the subject land and also removed the sign boards threatening the Petitioners not to enter into the subject land. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition came to be filed. 4. When the Writ Petition came for admission on 05.01.2018, this Court passed interim order in I.A.No.1 of 2018 that “There shall be interim direction as prayed for since the subject land belongs to the petitioner’s late father”. 5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for the Respondents would contend that the subject lands are not under possession and enjoyment of the Petitioner or his legal heirs. The subject lands are in possession of the some third parties i.e Siddavarapu Sumanth Kumar Reddy S/o Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy and Siddavarapu Madhusudhan Reddy, S/o Dasaradharami Reddy as per revenue records, who in turn sold away the subject land in favour of subsequent purchasers. However, in pursuance of 5 the application made by the Petitioner seeking mutation of his name in the revenue records a notice was issued on 01.12.2017 and the Petitioner has attended for an enquiry on 18.12.2017. During enquiry, it has stated that he is one of the legal heirs of Sri Konduru Rangacharyulu. As per the statement there are 10 legal representatives to the Petitioner’s father and he is not in a position to establish his actual share inherited from his late father, not produced any evidence in that regard. However, it is stated that the land was purchased by the villagers long back and the same is under their possession and enjoyment, but not in the possession of the Petitioner as claimed in the Writ Petition. 6. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for the Respondents. 7. Perused the record. 8. As per material available on record, it can be observed that the Petitioner is not in possession of the subject land, but one Siddavarapu Sumanth Kumar Reddy S/o Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy and Siddavarapu Madhusudhan Reddy, S/o Dasradharami Reddy are in possession and enjoyment. Subsequently it was sold to some third parties. Though, it is the claim of the Respondent No.3 that the Petitioner is not in possession of the subject land and as this Court passed the interim order not to dispossess the Petitioner, this Court feels it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition, directing the Respondents not to interfere with the subject land without 6 following due process of law, if at the Petitioner is in possession of the subject land, after conducting due enquiry. 9. With above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 23.06.2026 KK Whether the order is: Speaking Reasoned Reportable Non-reportable.