A Chandrasekhar Reddy Vs the Principal Secretary

¶1

APHC010564892025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3330]

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

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

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 29320/2025

¶7

Between:

¶8

A CHANDRASEKHAR REDDY, S/O MUNI BHUPATHI REDDY, AGED 51 YEARS, R/O D.NO. 5-179, PACHIKAPALAM VILLAGE, VEDURUKUPPAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 517569.

¶9

A. HEMALATHA, W/O A. CHANDRASEKHAR REDDY, AGED 44 YEARS R/O D. NO. 5-179, PACHIKAPALAM VILLAGE, VEDURUKUPPAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH – 517569.

¶10

...PETITIONER(S)

¶11

AND

¶12

1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE (LAND) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.-

¶13

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

¶14

THE TAHSILDAR, VEDURUKUPPAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

¶15

T CHANDRAIAH, S/O BAKKAYYA, R/O DOOR NO. 8-30, PACHIKAPALAM VILLAGE, VEDURUKUPPAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 517569.

¶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 action of the 2nd and 3rd Respondents in entertaining the complaint of the 4th Respondent through PGRS No. L4/E- 639/2025 dated 2107-2025, and initiating proceedings to delete the Petitioners names from revenue records, as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and contrary to the A.P. Land Assignment Rules, 1973 and consequently Direct the Respondents not to interfere with the Petitioners possession and enjoyment of the land in Survey No. 248/6, extent 1.00 acre, Pachikapalam Village, Vedurukuppam Mandal, Chittoor District, Declare that the Petitioners are the absolute owners and possessors of the said land and entitled to protection under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and Pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶18

2

¶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 direct the respondents not to interfere with the Petitioners possession and enjoyment of the land in Survey No. 248/6, extent 1.00 acre, Pachikapalam Village, Vedurukuppam Mandal, Chittoor District and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶20

1.PASAPALA SUDHAKAR REDDY

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶22

1.GP FOR REVENUE

¶23

3

¶24

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.29320 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 an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2^nd and 3^rd Respondents in entertaining the complaint of the 4^th Respondent through PGRS No.L4/E639/2025 dated 21-07-2025, and initiating proceedings to delete the Petitioners’ names from revenue records, as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and contrary to the A.P.Land Assignment Rules, 1973 and consequently direct the Respondents not to interfere with the Petitioners’ possession and enjoyment of the land in Survey No.248/6, extent 1.00 acre, Pachikapalam Village, Vedurukuppam Mandal, Chittoor District, Declare that the Petitioners are the absolute owners and possessors of the said land and entitled to protection under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and pass such other order.…”

¶28

The 2^nd respondent-District Collector vide proceedings in L4/e-

¶29

639/2025, dated 21.07.2025, issued a notice to the petitioners on the complaint given by unofficial respondent, directing the petitioners to attend an enquiry on 30.07.2025 at 3:00 P.M in Collector’s Office, Chittoor. The said notice is assailed in the present writ petition on irrelevant ground i.e., no notice was issued by the unofficial respondent before initiating complaint against the petitioners.

¶30

Heard Sri Pasapala Sudhakar Reddy, learned counsel for petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent Nos.1 to 3.

¶31

4

¶32

After arguing for some time, learned counsel for petitioners would submit that it would suffice if the petitioners are permitted to submit an explanation to the said notice, and the respondents are directed to consider the same.

¶33

Therefore, without going into merits of the matter, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition at the admission stage, permitting the petitioners to submit their explanation within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On filing such explanation, the District Collector is directed to examine the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law and communicate the said decision to the petitioners.

¶34

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶35

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

¶36

___________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

¶37

Date: 28.10.2025 KBN

A Chandrasekhar Reddy v. the Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A Chandrasekhar Reddy v. the Principal Secretary

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

Kundararaju Srihari Raju, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

A. Manideep Kumar Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Gullipalli Venkata Chandra Rao Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

B Bhanu Reddy Vs the State of Ap

Katuri Srinivasa Rao @ Srinu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Gottapu Poli Naidu Vs the State of Ap