APHC010692592025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] WEDNESDAY, THE 15th DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 35738/2025 Between: 1. K SIVAKANTH, S/O K. RAMAKRISHNA (RETD. TELUGU PANDIT), AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, RESIDING AT HOUSE NO. 3-34, CHALLAPALLI POST AND MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT - 521126, ANDHRA PRADESH. MOBILE 9949909416. ...PETITIONER AND 1. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS,DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, NEW DELHI-110001 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES, GUNTUR POSTAL DIVISION, GUNTUR - 522007. 3. THE DIRECTOR OF POSTAL SERVICES, VIJAYAWADA REGION, VIJAYAWADA-520001. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, NTR DISTRICT, VIJAYAWADA-520002. 5. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR, REGISTRATION AND STAMPS DEPARTMENT, NTR DISTRICT, VIJAYAWADA-520002. 6. THE SUBREGISTRAR, SUB-REGISTRAR OFFICE, VISSANNAPETA - 521215. 7. THE TAHSILDAR, VISSANNAPETA MANDAL, NTR DISTRICT- 521215. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 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 a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction declaring the attachment/freezing of the ancestral property covered under Document No. 529/1971, R.S. No. 188/2, Vissannapeta, as illegal, ultra vires, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14, 21, and 300-A and Direct the Respondents 4 to 7 to forthwith defreeze and release the property and Quash the proceedings initiated under the RR Act in so far as they purport to burden the entire joint ancestral property for a personal liability and Pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 Suspend all the attachment/freezing orders issued by Respondents 2 to 7 relating to the property under Document No. 529/1971 and Direct Respondents not to interfere with the possession, enjoyment, or proprietary rights of co-owners pending disposal of the Writ Petition before this Hon'ble Court and to 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 May be pleased to vacate the Interim Order, dt 23.12.2025 passed in W.P. NO. 35738 of 2025 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SARMA C V S S Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. DILIP JAYARAM S (CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL) 2. GP FOR REVENUE 3. GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS The Court made the following: 3 ORDER: Impugning the letter dated 25.07.2022 bearing Lr.No.F4-1/2022- 23/Tadepalli SO addressed by the 2nd respondent to the 4th respondent, the present writ petition is filed. 2. Heard Sri Sarma C.V.SS., learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri S.Dileep Jayaram, learned Standing Counsel for Central Government appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.4 & 7 and learned Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration appearing for respondent Nos.5 & 6. 3. While reiterating the contents of the affidavit, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, by way of the impugned letter, the authorities have freezed the petitioner’s property under the Revenue Recovery Act in order to recover the amount mentioned therein, on the alleged ground that the petitioner had misappropriated certain amounts. He contended that the petitioner’s property is ancestral property and that the authorities have no power to freeze the same. The authorities can freeze only the property belonging to the defaulter. Therefore, freezing of the joint family property is unsustainable. As such, the impugned letter is liable to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, Sri S.Dileep Jayaram, learned Standing Counsel, contended that the impugned letter does not attach any property of the petitioner. It is only a request made to the District Collector to recover the amount by invoking the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act. Therefore, the question of defreezing the property does not arise. 4 5. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 6. A close perusal of the impugned letter dated 25.07.2022 nowhere indicates that the property of the petitioner has been attached. When the petitioner’s property has not been attached, the question of giving directions to defreeze the property does not arise. The writ petition is too premature, and no such directions can be issued. In that view of the matter, the impugned letter warrants no interference and, being devoid of merits, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, if any proceedings are passed adversely affecting the petitioner's rights, the petitioner is at liberty to take appropriate steps in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date: 15.07.2026. JLV Whether the order is: Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No 5 118 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 35738/2025 Date: 15.07.2026 JLV