Dismissed¶¶31

Vajrala Venkateswara Reddy v. the Tahasildar

Andhra Pradesh HC13 Oct 2025WP/17442/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

writ petition dismissed as infructuous; mutation of revenue records without notice; Tahsildar Mylavaram Mandal; Sec.5(3) AP Rights in Lands and Pattadar Pass Book Act, 1971; principles of natural justice; pattadar pass book; deletion and restoration of name in revenue records; Article 226 Constitution of India; writ of mandamus; Sy.No.128 Mylavaram Village and Mandal; land extent Ac.0-29 cents; NTR District; Andhra Pradesh; unofficial respondent Bommareddy Srinivasa Reddy; no costs; miscellaneous petitions closed; no merits adjudication.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief; the Writ Petition was dismissed as infructuous (the petitioner's name having already been restored in the revenue records), with no order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions, if any, stood closed. ¶¶31

Vajrala Venkateswara Reddy Vs the Tahasildar — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether the action of Respondent No.1 (Tahsildar) in amending the revenue records in respect of the land extent Ac.0-29 cents in Sy.No.128 of Mylavaram Village and Mandal, NTR District by deleting the petitioner's name and entering Respondent No.5's name in his place, without issuing notice in terms of Sec.5(3) of the AP Rights in Lands and Pattadar Pass Book Act, 1971, is arbitrary, illegal and violative of principles of natural justice, and whether the petitioner's name ought to be restored. +1 more

¶¶21

Ratio / Principle

Since the petitioner's name had been restored by deleting the unofficial respondent's name subsequent to the filing of the Writ Petition, the Writ Petition was rendered infructuous; accordingly it was dismissed as infructuous with no order as to costs, without any adjudication on the merits of the mutation challenge.

¶¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati (Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao, J.), W.P. No. 17442 of 2023, decided 14.10.2025 — Writ petition under Article 226 challenging the action of the Tahsildar, Mylavaram Mandal in amending the revenue records for Ac.0-29 cents in Sy.No.128 of Mylavaram Village and Mandal, NTR District by deleting the petitioner's name and entering Respondent No.5's name in his place without issuing notice in terms of Sec.5(3) of the AP Rights in Lands and Pattadar Pass Book Act, 1971, alleging arbitrariness and violation of principles of natural justice, and seeking restoration of the petitioner's name. Held: after the filing of the Writ Petition, the petitioner's name was restored by deleting the unofficial respondent's name; the petition was therefore rendered infructuous and dismissed as such, with no order as to costs, and miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, stood closed. No finding was made on the merits of the mutation or the natural justice objection.

¶1

[3330]

¶2

APHC010339522023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

TUESDAY,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

¶8

WRIT PETITION No. 17442/2023

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

VAJRALA VENKATESWARA REDDY, S/O.KOTI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/o. NUZIVEEDU BYPASS ROAD, OPP: HP PETROL PUMP, MYLAVARAM, NTR DISTRICT.

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

THE TAHASILDAR, MYLAVARAM MANDAL, NTR DISTRICT.

¶14

THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT.

¶15

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT.

¶16

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

¶17

BOMMAREDDY SRINIVASA REDDY, S/O.SUBBA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O.PONDUGALA ROAD, MYLAVARAM VILLAGE AND MANDAL, NTR DISTRICT. RESPONDENTS

¶18

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶19

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 to declare the

¶20

¶21

action of the Respondent No.1 amending the revenue records in respect of the land extent Ac.0- 29 cents situated in Sy.No.128 of Mylavaram Village and Mandal, NTR District by deleting the name of the Petitioner and entering the name of the Respondent No.5 in the place of the name of the Petitioner without issuing notice in terms of Sec.5(3) of the AP Rights in Lands and Pattadar Pass Book Act, 1971 as arbitrary, illegal and violation of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the Respondent No.1 to restore the name of the Petitioner in the revenue records by removing the name of the Respondent No.5 in respect of the land extent Ac.0-29 cents situated in Sy.No.128 of Mylavaram Village and Mandal, NTR District in the interest of justice.

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶23

1.P NAGENDRA REDDY

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶25

1.GP FOR REVENUE

¶26

2.SK MEHABOOB NADEEM FAYAZ

¶27

The Court made the following:

¶28

¶29

ORDER:

¶30

The respondent no.1-Tahsildar, Mylaram Mandal, mutated the name of unofficial respondent in the place of name of the petitioner without issuing any notice. The same was challenged in the present Writ Petition. Subsequent to filing of the Writ Petition, the name of the petitioner herein was restored by deleting the name of the unofficial respondent. Hence, the present Writ Petition is rendered infructuous.

¶31

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶32

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶33

___________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

Date: 14.10.2025

Harin