APHC010335202026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] Wednesday, the 22nd day of July, 2026 Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi Writ Petition No: 18194 of 2026 Between: Shaik Nagamma ...Petitioner and The State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: 1. Pavani Siva Kumar Counsel for the respondents: 1. G.P. for Revenue The Court made the following: 2 W.P.No.18194 of 2026 ORDER: The 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 Writ of Mandamus, declaring action of the respondent No. 4 in not considering the petitioner’s representation, dated 15.05.2026 for issuing of pattadar pass book and title deed in respect of land to an extent of Ac. 3-75 cents in Sy. No. 203-1 of Konduru village, Tada mandal, Tirupathi district is illegal, arbitrary, violation of Articles 21 and 300 - A of Constitution of India and violation of principles of natural justice and consequently to direct the respondents to consider the petitioner’s representation, dated 15.05.2026 and issue pattadar pass book and title deed in the above subject land in favour of the petitioner and pass…” 2. The case of the petitioner, stated briefly, is as follows: a. The petitioner is a farmer who was in peaceful possession of 3.75 acres of agricultural land allotted by the respondent No. 4 in Sy. No. 203-1 of Konduru village, Tada mandal, Tirupathi district. Pattadar passbook was granted in petitioner’s favour. To pay off debts incurred from her late husband's medical treatments, the petitioner sought an informal loan from Kalahasthi Krishnaiah. As a strict condition for providing the financial assistance, Kalahasthi Krishnaiah demanded physical possession of her original land related documents. Having no alternative means to secure the funds, the petitioner surrendered her pattadar passbook and title deed to him as a collateral security. b. Kalahasthi Krishnaiah utilised the documents to forge and fabricate records and attempted to illegally trespass into the petitioner's property. To prevent him from taking the land, the petitioner filed a civil 3 W.P.No.18194 of 2026 suit in O.S. No. 107 of 2018 on the file of the Court of the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sullurpet, seeking temporary injunction. However, the lower Court dismissed the interim application vide I.A. No. 346 of 2018, without appreciating the submitted documents. c. The petitioner challenged the dismissal order by filing an appeal vide C.M.A. No. 02 of 2022 on the file of the Court of the VII Additional District Judge, Gudur. The appellate court allowed the appeal in her favour, reversing the lower court's decision and granted a temporary injunction. d. Despite the appellate Court’s injunction order in petitioner’s favour, Krishnaiah’s family members are pursuing legal actions against the petitioner. His son and wife (i.e., Kalahasthi Chengaiah and Kalahasthi Venkatamma) filed separate suits vide O.S. No. 20 of 2020 and O.S. No. 21 of 2020 respectively, basing on a sale agreement dated 20.10.2003 and are seeking permanent injunction order against the petitioner. No order was granted in their favour. e. While things stood thus, the respondent No. 4 issued the petitioner a show cause notice in Form-I, vide Rc.B. 201 / 2025, dated 02.06.2025, threatening to cancel her original land assignment and reclaim the property for the government. Although the petitioner quickly submitted a detailed legal explanation on 04.06.2025, the authorities have ignored her response and continue to withhold her official land related documents. Hence, the petitioner submitted an explanation dated 15.05.2026 to the respondent No. 4 explaining all the facts. As the respondent No. 4 had not considered the representation of the petitioner, this writ petition was filed. 3. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue submitted that he has no written instructions. 4 W.P.No.18194 of 2026 4. Sri P. V. Venkata Ravi Sankar, learned counsel representing the learned counsel for the petitioner, requested to dispose of the writ petition with proper directions to the concerned respondents for consideration of the pending representation of the petitioner within time fixed by this Court. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent No. 4 to dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 15.05.2026, as per law, within three (03) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order, by giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and service of notice on the persons likely to be affected viz., Kalahasthi Krishnaiah (against whom suit was filed by the petitioner) and Kalahasthi Chengaiah, Kalahasthi Venkatamma (who filed suits against the petitioner). Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE B.S. BHANUMATHI Dated: 22.07.2026 NSM 5 W.P.No.18194 of 2026 41 The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Writ Petition No: 18194 of 2026 Dated: 22.07.2026 NSM