APHC010383972026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] TUESDAY, THE 18th DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 21152/2026 Between: 1. K.MANJUNATHA REDDY, S/O.K.MUNIREDDY AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE R/O. D.NO.20-02, NALLGUTLAPALLI VILLAGE, GANGAVARAM MANDAL CHITTOOR DISTRICT.517408 ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP., BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTNNENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.522238 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, CHITTOOR.517002 3. THE JOINT COLLECTOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, CHITTOOR. 517002 4. THE TAHSILDAR, GANGAVARAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.517408 ...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 an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Notice in Roc.Coor5/532554/2026, dated Nil.07.2026 issued by the respondent No.3 basing on the proposals submitted by the respondent No.4 for deletion of the Webland entries updated in my favour in respect of the land in an extent of Ac. 1.07 cents in Sy.No.244/1 of Gangavaram Village fields, Gangavaram Mandal, Chittoor District, and calling upon me to appear before him in person along with relevant records, without referring to any provisions of law, as arbitrary, illegal, contrary to the contrary to the principles laid down by this Honble Court vide Order, dated 08.10.2021 made in W.P.No.16458 of 2021 and the provisions of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 and also the well established legal principles apart from being violative of the fundamental and the Constitutional rights guaranteed to me under Articles, 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same 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 grant stay of all further proceedings inpursuance of the Notice in Roc.Coor5/532554/2026, dated Nil.07.2026 issued by the respondent No.3, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V R REDDY KOVVURI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER Heard Sri D.Vigneshwar Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri V.R. Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Arjun, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondents. 2. Assailing the notice vide Roc.Coor5/532554/2026, dated 15.07.2026 calling upon the petitioner to appear before the 3rd respondent, the above writ petition is filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the procedure adopted by the 3rd respondent is contrary to the order passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.16458 of 2021 dated 08.10.2021. He would further submit that the respondents 2 and 3 have jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short “the Act”). However, a show cause notice needs to be issued by the authority as to why suo moto proceedings shall not be initiated under Section 9 of the Act. The notice impugned (Ex.P1) is not a show cause notice and hence, it is liable to be set aside. 4. Sri Arjun, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondents would submit that the order in W.P.No.16458 of 2021 has not been appealed and it became final. He would fairly submit that the notice Ex.P1 does not align with the procedure laid down in W.P.No.16458 of 2021. 5. Thus, a perusal of Ex.P1 notice impugned in the writ petition, it indicates that the Tahsildar, Gangavaram has submitted proposals recommending for deletion of entries made in the webland Adangal for the land of an extent of Ac.1.07 cents in S.No.244/1 in favour of the petitioner and the issue is posted for hearing before the 3rd respondent on 17.07.2026 and the petitioner was directed to appear in person along with original documents. 6. In W.P.No.16458 of 2021 dated 08.10.2021, a learned single Judge of this Court, by relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in D.N. Roy Vs. State of Bihar1, observed that a notice to show cause as to why suo moto proceedings should not be initiated is required to be issued before initiating exercise of such power under Section 9 of the Act by the authority. In fact, in that case, the notice impugned was set aside. 7. In the case on hand, the notice Ex.P1 is neither a show cause notice nor in consonance with the observations made in W.P.No.16458 of 2021 dated 08.10.2021. 1 AIR 1971 SC 1045 8. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned notice vide Roc.Coor5/532554/2026, dated 15.07.2026 (Ex.P1), is set aside. However, this order will not preclude the respondents 2 and 3 from initiating fresh proceedings under Section 9 of the Act by following the procedure. 9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is Allowed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI PVD