Dismissed¶33

Mrs. Puttamreddy Reddamma v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh High Court at Amaravati (Single Judge – Sri Justice Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao), 09.10.2025

Andhra Pradesh HC8 Oct 2025WP/19228/2024

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Withdrawal of writ petition; Article 226 mandamus challenge to Tahsildar Rajampet Mandal orders dated 7-01-2024 and 27-01-2024 effecting sub-division/mutation of Sy.No.813 (Ac.1023cts), Mannuru village, and entry in favour of 6th respondent; representation dated 29-7-2024 via spandana online; memo dated 25.09.2025; permission accorded; dismissed as withdrawn; no costs; pending IAs closed; Andhra Pradesh High Court; Justice Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao; 09.10.2025. Outcome-only judgment with no adjudication of merits - limited precedential value.

What did the court decide?

Permission accorded to withdraw; writ petition dismissed as withdrawn with no order as to costs; pending interlocutory applications, if any, closed. ¶33

Mrs. Puttamreddy Reddamma Vs the State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Permission accorded to withdraw; writ petition dismissed as withdrawn with no order as to costs; pending interlocutory applications, if any, closed.

¶33

Issue for consideration

Whether the action of the 3rd respondent in passing the impugned order dated 27-01-2024 (consequent to its order dated 7-01-2024) effecting sub-division and mutation of the land of Ac.3-41cts in Sy.No.813, Mannuru village, claimed by the petitioners through their mother Thummaluru Vanajakshamma and original pattadar Thummaluru Subbaiah Subba Reddy, without following due process, prior notice or enquiry, was arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300A and of natural justice. (Framed from the petition; not adjudicated as the petition was withdrawn.)

¶22

Ratio / Principle

Permission is accorded to the petitioners to withdraw the Writ Petition pursuant to the memo dated 25.09.2025 filed by learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶32

Key takeaways

The Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn and there shall be no order as to costs.ratio¶33
As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.ratio¶34

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Andhra Pradesh High Court at Amaravati (Single Judge - Sri Justice Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao), 09.10.2025 - Writ Petition No.19228 of 2024 (Art. 226): Petitioners, claiming through their mother Thummaluru Vanajakshamma and predecessor-in-title/original pattadar Thummaluru Subbaiah Subba Reddy, had challenged the Tahsildar, Rajampet Mandal's orders dated 7-01-2024 and 27-01-2024 directing sub-division of Sy.No.813 (Ac.1023cts) in Mannuru village and mutation of Ac.1-00 in Sy.No.813-1B in favour of the 6th respondent, alleging want of notice, enquiry and due process. Before adjudication, counsel filed a memo dated 25.09.2025 seeking withdrawal; permission accorded and the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn, with no order as to costs and closure of pending interlocutory applications. The substantive revenue grievance stands unadjudicated.

¶1

APHC010376832024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

[3330]

¶5

THURSDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

¶8

WRIT PETITION No.19228 of 2024

¶9

Between:

¶10

MRS. PUTTAMREDDY REDDAMMA, (D/O.LATE TUMULURU SUBBA REDDY) W/O. PUTTAM NARESH REDDY, AGE 47 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O. 4-23, NAGIREDDY PALLI ENAGALUR, CUDDAPAH, A.P.

¶11

MRS.TUMULURU CHINNA REDDAMMA,, (D/O.LATE THUMMALURU SUBBA REDDY), W/O. M.MANOHAR REDDY, AGE 46 YEARS, R/O.9/80, KAPU STREET, RAJAMPET, MANNURU, ANNAMAIAH (YSR KADAPA ) DISTRICT.

¶12

...PETITIONER(S)

¶13

AND

¶14

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

¶15

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, RAYACHOTI, ANNAMAIAH (YSR KADAPA) DISTRICT.

¶16

THETAHSILDAR, RAJAMPET MANDAL, RAJAMPET, ANNAMAIAH(YSR KADAPA) DISTRICT.

¶17

THE MANDAL REVENUE INSPECTOR, SUB-COLLECTOR OFFICE, RAJAMPET, ANNAMAIAH (YSR KADAKA)DISTRICT

¶18

MR ONTEDDU VENKATA SIVA REDDY, S/O.LATE SUBBA REDYY AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/O. BHAVANI NAGAR, RAJAMPET, ANNAMAIAH (YSR KADAPA) DISTRICT.

¶19

MRS PASUPULETI MANJULA, W/O.SUDHAKAR, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O.OPPOSITE VETENARY HOSPITAL, MANNUR, RAJAMPET, ANNAMAIAH (YSR KADAPA) DISTRICT.

¶20

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶21

¶22

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 call for the records and issue an appropriate Writ, direction or order, more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 3^rd respondent in passing the impugned order dated 27-01 -2024 consequent to its order dated 7-01-2024 directing the Mandal Surveyor, Rajampet/4th respondent to get sub-division of the land in Sy.No.813 extent of Ac.1023cts, Mannuru village, and directing to take necessary action for incorporation of changes in the survey records for onward entries in Revenue records including making entries as against Ac. 1-00 in Sy.No.813-1B infavour of the 6^th respondent and unknown as against Ac.2-41cts in Sy.No.318 inspite of our rights and title and possession inrespect of the land of an extent of Ac.3-41cts, Mannur village, Rajampet Mandal, claiming through our mother Thummaluru Vanajakshamma and predecessor in title namely Thummaluru Subbaiah Subba reddy original pattadar, as per rules passed by the 3^rd respondent without following the due process of law and without prior notice or conducting enquiry affording opportunity to us being the interested person as arbitrary, illegal, unjust and in violation of Articles 14,19, 21 and 300A of Constitution of India and contrary to the statutory provisions of law and in utter violation of principles of natural justice and fair play and consequently direct the respondents to consider our representation dated 29-7-2024 made to the respondents through spandana online for canceling the subdivision and mutation in the revenue records in the interests of justice.

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶24

1.P A SESHU

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶26

1.GP FOR REVENUE

¶27

2.C PRAKASH REDDY

¶28

The Court made the following:

¶29

¶30

ORDER:

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioners filed a memo dated 25.09.2025 requesting the Court to permit the petitioners to withdraw the present Writ Petition and the same is also endorsed on the bundle.

¶32

Permission is accorded.

¶33

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

¶34

As a sequel thereto, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶35

__________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

¶36

Date: 09.10.2025

¶37

siva