Disposed¶35

Mondi Yarava Jayamma v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC23 Oct 2025WP/29168/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Time-bound disposal of revenue appeal; writ of mandamus against appellate inaction; ROR Appeal Roc.No.3404/2024; pattadar passbooks illegally granted to private parties; Sub Collector Madanapalle; Annamayya district; Article 226 Constitution of India; three-month outer limit from receipt of order; Mondi Yarava Jayamma v. State of Andhra Pradesh; W.P. No. 29168 of 2025; decided 24.10.2025.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 3rd respondent appellate authority to dispose of the petitioner's ROR Appeal Roc.No.3404/2024 on merits and as per law, expeditiously and in any case not beyond three months from the date of receipt of the order; no order as to costs; pending interlocutory applications closed ¶35

Mondi Yarava Jayamma Vs The State of Andhra… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

¶1

[3330]

¶2

APHC010556412025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 29168/2025

¶8

Between:

¶9

MONDI YARAVA JAYAMMA, W/O. LATE VENKATARAMANA, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 3-169-13-150-105, GOWTHAMI NAGAR, B.K. PALLI, MADANAPALLE, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI.

¶13

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶14

THE SUB COLLECTOR, MADANAPALLE, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶15

THE TAHSILDAR, MADANAPALLE, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH

¶16

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶17

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 an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction of the 3rd respondent in not disposing of ROR Appeal Roc. No.3404/2024 filed by the petitioner against the illegally granted of Pattadar Pass Books in favour of private parties, as arbitrary, illegal and violative of the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the 3^rd respondent to dispose of the petitioners appeal Roc. No. 3404/2024 on merits and in accordance with law, within a time frame as may be fixed by this Hon’ble Court and Pass

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶19

1.VENKATESH KOSARAJU

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶21

1.GP FOR REVENUE

¶22

The Court made the following:

¶23

¶24

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

¶25

WRIT PETITION NO. 29168 of 2025

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

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

¶28

“…to issue an appropriate Writ, Order, or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction of the 3^rd Respondent in not disposing of ROR Appeal Roc.No.3404 of 2024 filed by the petitioner against the illegally granted of pattadar passbooks in favour of private parties, as arbitrary, illegal and violative of the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the 3^rd respondent to dispose of the petitioner’s appeal Roc.No.3404 of 2024 on merits and in accordance with law, within a time frame as may be fixed by this Hon’ble Court and pass such other order or direction as may be deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case”.

¶29

The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of a direction for expeditious disposal of the ROR Appeal No.3404 of 2024 filed before the 3^rd respondent.

¶30

The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the appellate authority is bound to decide the case in accordance with law expeditiously. The urgency that is stated that the property rights are involved in the case if the delay is occasioned that it will be detrimental to the petitioner. Hence, pleaded to direct the appellate authority to dispose of the appeal in a time bound manner in accordance with law.

¶31

Ergo the Court directs the 3^rd respondent appellate authority to make an endeavour to put an end, by making all the efforts in deciding the case with due diligence within a reasonable time for disposal of the ROR Appeal filed by the petitioner, on merits and as per law, as

¶32

¶33

expeditiously as possible and in any case, not beyond three months

¶34

from the date of receipt of the order.

¶35