Disposed¶37

M Prameela v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC15 Oct 2025WP/28537/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Mutation of pattadar/revenue records; D.K.T. patta succession (Patta No.282/4/1388 dated 31.10.1978); Application No.MUT250902024724 dated 19.09.2025; direction to Tahsildar, Renigunta to consider mutation application and act per law within 3 months; Article 226 mandamus; disposed without costs. Parties: M Prameela v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others (Writ Petition No.28537 of 2025, decided 16.10.2025).

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No.4 (Tahsildar, Renigunta) to redress the petitioner's grievance (consideration of Mutation Application No.MUT250902024724 dated 19.09.2025) in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, not later than three (03) months from receipt of a copy of the order; no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous petitions closed. ¶37

M Prameela Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶37

Issue for consideration

Whether the 4th respondent's failure to consider the petitioner's mutation application No.MUT250902024724 dated 19.09.2025 (for mutating her name in online revenue records in respect of Ac.4.95 cents in Sy.Nos.335/2B, 335/3, Annasamipalli Village, Renigunta Mandal) warrants a writ direction to consider the application and mutate her name.

¶30

Court's answer

In view of the Tahsildar's written instructions, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing respondent No.4 to redress the petitioner's grievance in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, not later than three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

¶37

Ratio / Principle

There shall be no order as to costs, and as a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶38

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition No.28537 of 2025, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati (Justice Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao, decided 16.10.2025): M Prameela, whose family holds D.K.T. Patta No.282/4/1388 dated 31.10.1978 granted to her father-in-law Madhavaram Muniswamy Reddy for Ac.4.95 cents in Sy.Nos.335/2B and 335/3, Annasamipalli Village, Renigunta Mandal, applied on 19.09.2025 (Application No.MUT250902024724) through Venkatapuram Village Secretariat for mutation of her name in online revenue records after her husband's death; the 4th respondent Tahsildar did not act on the application. Relying on the Tahsildar's written instructions dated 14.10.2025 that a notice would issue and an enquiry be conducted before appropriate action, the Court disposed of the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution directing respondent No.4 to redress the petitioner's grievance in accordance with law within three months, with no order as to costs, and closed pending miscellaneous petitions.

¶1

APHC010542502025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

[3330]

¶4

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

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 28537/2025

¶7

Between:

¶8

M PRAMEELA, W/O. LATE M. NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE, R/O. YELAMANDYAM, ANNASAMIPALLI VILLAGE, RENIGUNTA MANDAL TIRUPATI DISTRICT, A.P.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS , PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, A.P.

¶12

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT.

¶13

THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT.

¶14

THE TAHSILDAR, RENIGUNTA, TIRUPATI DISTRICT.

¶15

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶16

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 Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF. MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents more particularly the action of the 4th Vespondent in not considering the Mutation application made by the Petitioner through enkatapuram Village Secretariat vide Application No.MUT250902024724 dated 19.09.2025 for mutating/incorporating the name of the Petitioner in online web entries for admeasuring the land to an extent of Ac. 1.45 cents in Sy.No. 335/2B, an extent of Ac. 3.50 cents in Sy.No. 335/3 situated in Annasamipalli Village, Renigunta Mandal, Chittoor Districtis illegal, Arbitrary, Unconstitutional, contrary to the Provisions of A.P. Rights in lands and Pattadar Passbooks Act and Rules made there under and consequently direct the 4threspondent to consider Petitioner Mutation application No. MUT250902024724 dated 19.09.2025 by incorporating the entries in online revenue records in respect of lands to an extent of Ac. 1.45 cents in Sy.No. 335/2B, an extent of Ac. 3.50 cents in Sy.No. 335/3 situated in Annasamipalli Village, Renigunta Mandal, Chittoor Districtand to pass

¶17

¶18

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶19

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 Pleased to grant interim direction to direct the 4th respondent to consider the Petitioner Mutation application No. MUT250902024724 dated 19.09.2025 by incorporating the entries in online revenue records forthwith in respect of land to an extent of Ac. 1.45 cents in Sy.No. 335/2B, an extent of Ac. 3.50 cents in Sy.No. 335/3 situated in Annasamipalli Village, Renigunta Mandal, Chittoor Districtpendin g disposal of the Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶20

1.NAVULURU KRISHNA SAI

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶22

1.GP FOR REVENUE

¶23

¶24

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.28537 of 2025

¶25

ORDER:-

¶26

The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

¶27

“… to issue Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents more particularly the action of the 4^th respondent in not considering the Mutation application made by the Petitioner through Venkatapuram Village Secretariat vide Application No.MUT250902024724 dated 19.09.2025 for mutating/incorporating the name of the Petitioner in online web entries for admeasuring the land to an extent of Ac.1.45 cents in Sy.No.335/2B, an extent of Ac.3.50 cents in Sy.No.335/3 situated in Annasamipalli Village, Renigunta Mandal, Chittoor District, is illegal, Arbitrary, Unconstitutional, contrary to the Provisions of A.P.Rights in lands and Pattadar Passbooks Act and Rules made there under and consequently direct the 4^th respondent to consider Petitioner Mutation application No.MUT250902024724 dated 19.09.2025 by incorporating the entries in online revenue records in respect of lands to an extent of Ac.1.45 cents in Sy.No.335/2B, an extent of Ac.3.50 cents in Sy.No.335/3 situated in Annasamipalli Village, Renigunta Mandal, Chittoor District and to pass such other order or orders.…”

¶28

The grievance of the petitioner is that petitioner’s family is recognized as belonging to landless poor category. Considering the same, the then Mandal Revenue Officer granted a D.K.T.Patta to one Madhavaram Muniswamy Reddy i.e., the father of the petitioner’s husband vide D.K.T.No.282/4/1388 dated 31.10.1978 for an extent of Ac.4.95 cents in Sy.Nos.335/2B, 335/3 situated in Annasamipalli Village, Renigunta Mandal, Chittoor District. The name of the

¶29

¶30

petitioner’s father-in-law was accordingly mutated in the revenue records. After his demise, petitioner’s husband succeeded to the property by way of inheritance and has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the same. The petitioner’s husband subsequently made an application for mutation of his name in the revenue records. However, before consideration of the application, petitioner’s husband passed away. Later, petitioner herein made an application vide application No.MUT250902024724 dated 19.09.2025 seeking mutation of petitioner’s name in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.4.95 cents in Sy.Nos.335/2B, 335/3 situated in Annasamipalli Village, Renigunta Mandal, Chittoor District. As no action was taken on the said application, present writ petition is filed seeking a direction to the respondents to mutate the name of the petitioner in the revenue records.

¶31

Heard Sri Navuluru Krishna Sai, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondents.

¶32

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that it would suffice to direct the respondents to consider the petitioner’s application and pass appropriate orders.

¶33

Learned Assistant Government Pleader has furnished written

¶34

instructions dated 14.10.2025, addressed by the Tahsildar, Renigunta

¶35

¶36

Mandal, wherein it is stated that the petitioner will be issued a notice in due process, calling for an enquiry for production of cognizable documentary evidence in support of her contentions. It is further stated that after conducting the enquiry, recording the deposition, and completing other prescribed formalities, appropriate action will be taken in accordance with law.

¶37

In view of the above assertions, the present Writ Petition is disposed of directing respondent No.4 to redress the petitioner’s grievance in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, not later than three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶38

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

¶39

___________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

¶40

Date: 16.10.2025 KBN

M Prameela v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M Prameela v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Penumadu Vijaya Vani Kumari Vs the State of Ap

Malisetty Prasad Vs the State of Ap

Lakshmi Reddy Gari Ranganatha Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

K v v S Prasada Rao Vs the State of Ap

Manthri Narasimah Murthy Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Nandhivada Naga Narasimha Venu Gopal, Vs The State of A.P.