Disposed¶38

K Siddamma v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC18 Jan 2026WP/1131/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Andhra Pradesh High Court at Amaravati; W.P. No.1131 of 2026; Justice B Krishna Mohan; disposed 19.01.2026. Mandamus sought for implementation of RDO order D.Dis.N/2660/2023 dated 19.10.2023 sub-dividing Kalava and Cart Track in Sy.No.54/5 (Ac.1.41 cents), Chintapenta Village, Penumur Mandal, Chittoor District; amendment of DKT granted to Respondent No.5's grand-father; removal of encroachments; Tahsildar's inaction; revision pending before Joint Collector, Chittoor; petitioner permitted to pursue revision; Article 226; Article 300-A; Section 151 CPC; no costs; interlocutory application closed.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to pursue the pending revision petition before the appropriate authority (Joint Collector, Chittoor) by following the due procedure; no order as to costs; pending interlocutory applications stand closed.

K Siddamma Vs the State of Ap — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶38

Issue for consideration

Whether the action of Respondent No.4 (Tahsildar) in not implementing the orders passed by Respondent No.3 (RDO) vide D.Dis.N/2660/2023, dated 19.10.2023, sub-dividing the Kalava and Cart Track in Sy.No.54/5 and amending the DKT entries, calls for a writ of mandamus and directions to remove encroachments. +1 more

¶19

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition is disposed of without issuing notice to the 5th respondent, as no prejudice would be caused even if it is disposed of in his absence.

¶31

Key takeaways

In view of the pendency of the revision petition before the Joint Collector, Chittoor against the RDO's proceedings dated 19.10.2023, the petitioner is permitted to pursue the said revision before the appropriate authority concerned by following the due procedure.ratio¶37
The Writ Petition is disposed of with no order as to costs.ratio¶38
As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition under Article 226 by K Siddamma seeking a mandamus declaring illegal the inaction of Respondent No.4 (Tahsildar, Penumur Mandal) in not implementing the order of Respondent No.3 (RDO, Chittoor) vide D.Dis.N/2660/2023, dated 19.10.2023, sub-dividing the Kalava and Cart Track in Sy.No.54/5 (Ac.1.41 cents, Chintapenta Village, Penumur Mandal, Chittoor District) and in not issuing the amendment order for the DKT granted in favour of Respondent No.5's grand-father, and consequently directing removal of encroachments on the Cart Track and Kalava. On the State's written instructions (dated 03.01.2026) disclosing that a revision against the RDO's order is pending before the Joint Collector, Chittoor — who is not a party to the writ petition — the Court, without notice to Respondent No.5 (no prejudice caused), disposed of the writ petition permitting the petitioner to pursue the pending revision before the appropriate authority in accordance with due procedure. No order as to costs; pending interlocutory applications closed.

¶1

[3233]

¶2

APHC010000022026

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

MONDAY,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 1131/2026

¶9

Between:

¶10

K SIDDAMMA, W/O K. REDDEPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O D.NO. 28-394/2, SRI SAIBABA STREET, RAMNAGAR COLONY, CHITTOOR TOWN AND MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETAIY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI. (522238) 2.

¶14

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT AT CHITTOOR. (517001) 3.

¶15

THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, CHITTOOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. (517001) 4.

¶16

THE TAHSILDAR, PENUMUR MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. (517126) 5.

¶17

M JAGADEESH, S/O M. MURAGAIAH, AGE NOT KNOWN, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O CHINTAPENTA VILLAGE, PENUMUR MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. (517126)

¶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 topleased to issue a WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents herein particularly Respondent No.4 in not implementing the orders till today, passed by the Respondent No.3 vide D.Dis.N/2660/2023, Dt. 19.10.2023 in sub dividing the Kalava and Cart Track existed in Sy.No. 54/5 in an extent of Ac. 1.41 cents of Chintapenta Village, Penumur Mandal, Chittoor District and in issuing the amendment order for the DKT granted in

¶20

¶21

favour of grand-father of Respondent No.5 by making necessary entries in the revenue records despite numerous requests and representations from the Petitioner and villagers even lapse of three years as nothing but illegal, erroneous, arbitrary, unjust and violative of Principles of Natural Justice and Article 300-A of The Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondent No.4 to remove the encroachments on Cart Track and Kalava in Sy.No. 54/5 as per the direction of the Respondent No.3 and pass

¶22

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶23

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 Respondent No.4 to remove the encroachments on Cart Track and Kalava in Sy.No.54/5 in an extent of Ac. 1.41 cents of Chintapenta Village, Penumur Mandal, Chittoor District by considering the Petitioner’s representations Dt. 26.10.2023, 26.11.2025 and the villagers representations on 12.12.2022 and 26.11.2025 pending disposal of the Writ Petition and pass such other order or orders as this Honble Court may deem fit and property in the circumstances of the case. 07.07.2025,

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶25

1.SURESH KUMAR REDDY KALAVA

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶27

1.GP FOR REVENUE

¶28

¶29

The Court made the following ORDER:

¶30

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 4.

¶31

This Writ Petition is disposed of without issuing notice to the 5^th respondent as no prejudice would be caused even if it is disposed of in his absence.

¶32

This Writ Petition was filed questioning the action of the 4^th respondent in not implementing the orders till today, passed by the 3^rd respondent vide D.Dis.N/2660/2023, dated 19.10.2023 in sub-dividing the Kalava and Cart Track existed in Sy.No.54/5 in an extent of Ac.1.41 cents of Chintapenta Village, Penumur Mandal, Chittoor District and in issuing the amendment order for the DKT granted in favour of the 5^th respondent’s grand-father by making necessary entries in the revenue records despite numerous requests and representations from the petitioner and villagers even after a lapse of three (03) years.

¶33

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is only seeking the implementation of the orders of the 3^rd respondent dated 19.10.2023 for sub-dividing the Kalava and Cart Track existed in Sy.No.54/5 in an extent of Ac.1.41 cents of Chintapenta Village, Penumur Mandal, Chittoor District, as detailed in the said order of the 3^rd respondent dated 19.10.2023.

¶34

On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader relying upon the written instructions of the 4^th respondent dated 03.01.2026 submits that the 5^th respondent’s father i.e., the 1^st respondent therein before the 3^rd

¶35

¶36

respondent filed revision petition against the said proceedings of the 3^rd respondent dated 19.10.2023, before the Joint Collector, Chittoor, who is not a party before this Court in this Writ Petition. The 5^th respondent herein is also a party to the said proceedings of the 3^rd respondent dated 19.10.2023. The said written instructions shall be made as part of the Court record.

¶37

In view of the above said facts and circumstances, the petitioner is permitted to pursue the said revision before the appropriate authority concerned as indicated above, by following the due procedure.

¶38