GULLADURTHI RAJASIMHA REDDY v. NAGUMALLA HITESH RAM
WA/725/2026 · 2026-06-29
Ravi Nath Tilhari, Subhendu Samanta
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 4464 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 4464 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Date of reserved for orders : Date of pronouncement : 30.06.2026 Date of uploading : APHC010226372026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3562] TUESDAY, THE 30th DAY OF JUNE 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA WRIT APPEAL NO: 725/2026 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent above named Appellant begs to present this Memorandum of Writ Appeal against the
Judgment passed in W.P.NO. 36193 OF 2025, dated 30.12.2025 passed by His Lordship for the following grounds among other Between:
1. GULLADURTHI RAJASIMHA REDDY, S/O. SEETHARAMI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, RVO.U.IVO.L4IO(4,VASANTNAPETA STREET, PRODDATUR POST AND MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT, A P - 516360
...APPELLANT AND
1. NAGUMALLA HITESH RAM, S/O.LATE NAGUMALLA SURENDRA, AGED ABOUT 9YEARS, MINOR REP., BY HIS GRAND MOTHER, NAGUMALLA SHOBHA , W/O.LATE NAGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCC HOUSE WIFE,
2. NAGUMALLA TARUN KRISHNA, S/O.LATE NAGUMALLA SURENDRA, AGED ABOUT 8YEARS, MINOR, REP., BY HIS GRAND MOTHER, NAGUMALLA SHOBHA ,W/O.LATE NAGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE
2
3. NAGUMALLA SHOBHA, W/O. LATE NAGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 59YEARS, OCCHOUSE WIFE,
ALL ARE R/O.D.NO.24/608VASANTHAPETA STREET, PRODDATUR TOWN AKADAP DISTRICT A P - 51636
4. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,REVENUE DEPARTMENT ,SECRETARIAT BUILDING,VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, A P -
52238. 5. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, YSR KADAPA DISTRCT AT KADAPA, A P - 516001. 6. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KADAPA, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT,A P -516001. 7. THE TAHSILDAR, YERRAGUNTLA MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT, A P - 516362. 8. NAGAMALLA ALIAS PABBATI SUPRAJA, W/O.LATE NAGUMALLA SURENDRA,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, OCCHOUSEWIFE, R/O.26/766, MITTAMADI STREET, PRODDATUR POST AND MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT, A P -516360. ...RESPONDENT(S):
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 Dispense With in filing of the original certified Copy of order dated 30.12.2025 passed in W.P.NO. 36193 OF 2025, in pending disposal of the above case and pass IA NO: 2 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 condone the delay of (I5) days in filing the above W.A in W.P.NO.
36193 OF 2025, dated 30.12.2025 passed by His Lordship otherwise the petitioner will suffer irreparable loss and hardship and pass IA NO: 3 OF 2026
3
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 grant stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the order dated 30.12.2025 passed in W.P. No.36193 of 2025, including mutation proceedings in respect of land bearing Sy.No.847/1, situated at Chinnadandluru Village, Yerraguntla Mandal, YSR Kadapa District, pending disposal of the present Writ Appeal and pass Counsel for the Appellant:
1. MEDARA SIVA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR REVENUE
2. SURESH KUMAR REDDY KALAVA The Court made the following:
4
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA WRIT APPEAL NO: 725/2026
ORDER: (per Ravi Nath Tilhari, J)
Heard Sri M.Siva Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Suresh Kumar Reddy Kalava, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 (writ petitioners). Learned Government Pleader for Revenue accepted notice for respondent Nos.4 to 7.
2. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 – Writ petitioners filed W.P.No.36193 of 2025 for a direction to the respondent No.4 therein – the Tahsildar, Yerranguntla Mandal, Kadapa District for mutating the names of the writ petitioners in the web-land records like 1-B and Adangal and to issue new Pattadar Passbooks in their favour pursuant to the judgment and decree dated 23.12.2024 in O.S.No.60 of 2019 passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge – cum – Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kamalapuram, Kadapa District with regard to the extent of Ac.3.82 cents in Sy.No.847 (New Sy.No.847/1) of Chinnadandluru Village, Yerraguntla Mandal, Kadapa District, as despite the trial Court having declared the title to the petitioners and despite the lapse of a year of time nothing was done which inaction was illegal.
3. The writ petition was disposed of finally by judgment dated 30.12.2025 with a direction to respondent No.4 – Tahsildar to consider the request of the writ petitioners and pass appropriate orders under the relevant provisions of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Lands and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 after
5
following the due process of law and also by issuing notice to the writ petitioners as well as respondent No.5 in writ petition (present respondent No.8) within a specified period.
4. In writ petition notice on respondent No.5 therein was dispensed with.
5. The present writ appeal has been filed by respondent No.6 in the writ petition.
6.
Learned counsel for the appellant submit that in writ petition no notice was issued to respondent No.6 (the present appellant) nor issuance of notice on the said respondent was dispensed with. Consequently, the appellant had no opportunity of hearing in the writ petition. He further submits that the appellant was also one of the defendants in the suit being O.S.No.60 of 2019
decreed vide judgment & decree dated 23.12.2024 by the learned Junior Civil Judge – cum – Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kamalapuram, Kadapa District with respect to the subject property. So, the valuable right of the writ appellant was also involved in the writ petition as also in the matter pending before the Tahsildar, but as there is no direction for issuance of notice to respondent No.6 for hearing, like the direction has been issued for respondent No.5, the writ appellant has not received any notice from the Tahsildar and if any ex-parte order is passed by the Tahsildar pursuant to the order passed in the writ petition, that will adversely affect the writ appellant’s right in the subject property.
6
7.
Learned counsel for the respondents fairly submitted that they have no objection if notice is issued to the writ appellant by the Tahsildar in the matter pending before him and in providing opportunity of hearing like the direction has already been issued in respect of respondent No.5 in the writ petition.
8. Considering the aforesaid, we are of the view that since the learned Single Judge has directed respondent No.4 – Tahsildar in the writ petition to pass appropriate orders on the application of the present respondent Nos.1 to 3 in accoradance with law after issuing notice to the writ petitioners and respondent No.5 in the writ petition, the writ appellant, who was respondent No.6 in writ petition and to whom notice was not issued, deserve to be afforded opportunity of hearing before the Tahsildar like respondent No.5. Consequently, it is provided that the writ appellant shall also be provided opportunity for hearing before the Tahsildar and for the said purpose, notice shall be issued also to the writ appellant, if the notice has already not been issued to the writ appellant and he shall be granted opportunity of hearing.
9. The writ appellant is also at liberty to approach the Tahsildar in the pending proceedings and if he so appears in those proceedings then also he shall be afforded opportunity.
10. The final orders will be passed by the Tahsildar within a period of six (06) weeks from the date of production of the copy of this order.
11. With the above directions, the writ appeal is disposed of finally.
No order as to costs.
7
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed.
___________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI,J
______________________ SUBHENDU SAMANTA,J
Dated:30.06.2026 AG
Whether the order is : Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No
8
79 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA
WRIT APPEAL NO: 725/2026
Dated:30.06.2026 AG