APHC010456582026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] WEDNESDAY, THE 2nd DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 24786/2026 Between: 1. CHINTHA YASODAMMA, W/O. CHINTHA KRISHNA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 38/111-1, BUDDAYAPALLI, CHINNACHOWK, KADAPA.- 516 002 2. CHINTHA VENKATA RAMANA REDDY, S/O. CHINTHA KRISHNA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS., R/O. D.NO. 38/111-1, BUDDAYAPALLI, CHINNACHOWK, KADAPA -516002. 3. BANDARU SUBBA LAKSHMAMMA,, W/O. SRINIVASA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS. R/O.45/275, BALAJI NAGAR, KADAPA - 516003. 4. MIDDALA SUDHA RANI,, W/O. MIDDALA SUBBA RAO., AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS., R/O. 12/374, NEW ROAD., CHENNUR, KADAPA DISTRICT -516162 ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY IS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT-522237 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KADAPA DISTRICT, KADAPA-516001 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KADAPA-516001 4. THE TAHSILDAR, KADAPA MANDAL, KADAPA. -516001 5. MATLI VENKAA SUBBA REDDY, . S/O. MATTI SUBBANNA, AGED MAJOR., RIO. BUDDAYAPALLI VILLAGE., KADAPA-51'6001 ...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 writ of mandamus declaring the notices dated 18-07-2026 made in Ref.No. RDOKDP-SDLOROR/2/2026-SA(C )-RDO -KDPDVSN and dated 23-08-2026 made in Ref.No. RDOKDP-SDL0ROR/2/2026-SA(C )-RDO KDPDVSN of the 3 rd respondent herein as arbitrary, illegal, improper and without any jurisdiction apart from violation of principles of natural justice . and consequently direct the respondents herein not to proceed further in pursuance to the notices dated 18-07-2026 made in Ref.No. RDOKDP- SDLOROR/2/2026-SA(C )-RDO -KDPDVSN and dated 23- 08-2026 made in Ref.No. RDOKDP-SDL0R0R/2/2026-SA(C )-RDO - KDPDVSN of the 3rd respondent 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 stay all further proceedings in pursuance to the notices dated 18-07-2026 made in Ref.No. RDOKDP-SDLOROR/2/2026-SA(C)-RDO —KDPDVSN and dated 23-08-2026 made in Ref.No. RDOKDP- SDLOROR/2/2026-SA(C)- RDO —KDPDVSN of the 3rd respondent Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. V V N NARASIMHAM Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following order : Heard Sri V.V.N. Narasimham, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Chandra Sekhar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, for respondents 1 to 4. 2. Notice to respondent No.5 is dispensed with since no adverse order affecting his right or interest is passed. 3. Assailing the notices issued by respondent No.3 vide RDOKDP- SDLOROR/2/2026-SA(C) RDO-KDPDVSN, dated 18.07.2026 and RDOKDP- SDLROROR/2/2026 SA (C)-RDO-KDPDVSN, dated 23.08.2026-Exs.P1 and P2, the above writ petition was filed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that petitioners 1 and 2 inherited an extent of Ac. 0-21 cents situated in Survey No.564/4 situated at Chinnachowk of Kadapa District. The father of petitioner No.1 passed away on 10.10.1979, leaving behind his wife and two daughters. After the death of the father of petitioner No.1, petitioner No.1 and her sister settled the properties and sister of petitioner No.1 executed a relinquishment deed bearing document No.48/1980, dated 16.06.1980. Thereafter, respondent No.4 issued a possession certificate; a copy of the possession certificate is filed along with the material papers. Subsequently, petitioners 1 and 2 sold the property to petitioners 3, 4 and another. While the matter stood thus, respondent No.3 issued notices, Exs.P1 and P2, calling upon the petitioners to submit an explanation together with documentary evidence including the original or certified copy of possession certificate issued by the then Tahsildar vide Rc.No.B/190/2018, dated 02.12.2018, registered documents, etc., in relation to the aforementioned property. Learned counsel would submit that respondent No.3 has no jurisdiction to direct the petitioners to submit title documents except for the possession certificate. The petitioners, pursuant to Exs.P1 and P2, notices, went to the office and requested respondent No.3 to extend time to submit explanation. However, respondent No.3 has not acceded to the said request. 5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, on instructions of respondent No.3, would submit that since the petitioners failed to submit the documents in response to the earlier notice, respondent No.3 issued a fresh notice, dated 23.08.2026-Ex.P2 and time was extended to submit the explanation. Learned counsel would further submit that the request made by the petitioners, seeking further time, has not been rejected. Respondent No.3 will act strictly within the framework of revenue and recovery of land revenue administration. 6. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that respondent No.3, in the guise of the notices-Exs.P1 and P2, is attempting to conduct trial like a Civil Court and the same is impermissible. He would fairly submit that the petitioners will submit an explanation regarding the possession certificate. 7. As seen from Exs.P1 and P2, respondent No.3 directed the petitioners to submit explanation and documentary evidence regarding the possession certificate issued vide Rc.No.B/190/2018 dated 02.12.2018 and documents bearing Nos.3398/2026, 3399/2026, 3460/2026 and 3461/2026, dated 21.05.2026. 8. Whether respondent No.3 has jurisdiction to decide the validity of a document, being a civil dispute between two individuals, the answer would be an emphatic ‘no’. 9. If an objection is raised by the petitioners vis-à-vis the jurisdiction, the learned authority shall advert to the same. Page 5 of 5 10. In respect of the possession certificate, which was issued by the Tahsildar, respondent No.3 can enquire into the genuineness of the certificate. In view of the written instructions concerning the receipt of the reply, this Court deems it appropriate to give liberty to the petitioners to submit an explanation. 11. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners will submit the explanation within two weeks from today and the said submission is recorded. 12. Given the above facts and circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage with the consent of learned counsel on either side, giving liberty to the petitioners to submit an explanation in response to the notices-Exs.P1 and P2. The petitioners are at liberty to raise an objection regarding jurisdiction of respondent No.3, vis-à-vis registered documents. If the petitioners object to the jurisdiction of respondent No.3, respondent No.3 shall advert to the said objection. The authority shall provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and answer the same. The authority shall pass a reasoned order, strictly adhering to the principles of natural justice and other legal procedure and communicate the same to the petitioners. No costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date: 02.09.2026 IKN