Dismissed¶38

G Anajan Reddy v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC8 Dec 2025WP/14729/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition against Tahsildar's endorsement dated 15.05.2025 on mutation application dismissed as misconceived and not maintainable for want of adverse findings against petitioner; endorsement only directed parties to furnish documents failing which enquiry and report to Revenue Divisional Officer. Keywords: mutation of names, revenue records, endorsement, Tahsildar Athmakur Mandal, Revenue Divisional Officer enquiry, maintainability, misconceived writ petition, Anantapur.

What did the court decide?

The endorsement dated 15.05.2025 issued by the 3rd respondent contains no specific observation or finding by the 3rd respondent against the petitioner, and no adverse findings against him. ¶37

G Anajan Reddy Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh — Andhra Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

APHC010293302025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

[3208]

¶6

TUESDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶7

PRESENT

¶8

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO: 14729/2025

¶10

Between:

¶11

G ANAJAN REDDY, S/O.NARAPPA, AGED ABOUT ABOVE 50 YEARS, R/O. RANGAMPETA VILLAGE, ATHMAKUR MANDAL, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT.

¶12

...PETITIONER

¶13

AND

¶14

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH

¶15

THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ANANTAPUR, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT.

¶16

THE TAHSILDAR, ATHMAKUR MANDAL, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT.

¶17

GANGANNA SURYA NARAYANA REDDY, S/O. BASANNA, ' AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/O. ANANTAPUR TOWN, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT.

¶18

GANGANA BASANNAGARI NARAYANA REDDY, , S/O. OBIREDDY AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O.

¶19

¶20

RANGAMPETA, ATHMAKUR MANDAL, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT.

¶21

GANGANA BASANGARI OBIREDDY, S/O. NARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS, R/O. TOPUDURTHI VILLAGE, ATHAMUKU MANDAL, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT.

¶22

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶24

1.K SRINIVAS

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶26

1.GP FOR REVENUE

¶27

2.SESHADRI GOALLA

¶28

The Court made the following:

¶29

¶30

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH

¶31

WRIT PETITION No.14729 of 2025

¶32

ORDER:

¶33

This writ petition is filed questioning the endorsement dated 15.05.2025 issued by the 3^rd respondent.

¶34

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3.

¶35

The 3^rd respondent has issued an endorsement based on the application made by the unofficial respondents. The application is pertaining to mutation of the names of the unofficial respondents in revenue records. The same was considered and issued an endorsement stating that both the parties would submit relevant documents, failing which, based on revenue records, the authority would conduct an enquiry and the report would be submitted to the Revenue Divisional Officer and as per the directions of the Revenue Divisional Officer, the action would be taken.

¶36

¶37

On perusal of the endorsement, it shows that there is no specific observation or finding by the 3^rd respondent against the petitioner herein. The 3^rd respondent has only considered the request made by the unofficial respondents and directed both parties to submit the documents, failing which, based on revenue records, the authority would conduct an enquiry and send the report to the Revenue Divisional Officer. On perusal of the endorsement, it further shows that there are no adverse findings against the petitioner. Hence, the writ petition is misconceived and not maintainable.

¶38