Disposed

Sri S. Bilal, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC9 Sept 2026WP/11866/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order summarily disposed of a writ petition challenging inaction in delet ing land from a prohibitory list under the Registration Act. Directed Respondents to pass orders upon the Tahsildar's report within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed Respondents 2 and 3 to pass appropriate orders pursuant to the Tahsildar's report for land deletion within six weeks.

Sri S. Bilal, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Land Acquisition | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

[3331]

¶2

APHC010225792026

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

THURSDAY, THE 10^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 11866/2026

¶9

Between:

¶10

SRI S. BILAL,, S/O LATE ALLABAKASH, AGED 49 YEARS OCC CULTIVATION,R/O D.NO 17-6-471,HUSNABAD, HINDUPUR TOWN AND MANDAL, SRI SATHYA SAI DISTRICT.

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT-522238.

¶14

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SRI SATHYA SAL DISTRICT, PUTTAPARTHI- 515134.

¶15

THE SUBCOLLECTORCUMREVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PENUKONDA, SRI SATHYA SAI DISTRICT- 515110.

¶16

THE TAHSILDAR, LEPAKSHI MANDAL, SRI SATHYA SAI DISTRICT515331.

¶17

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶18

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 a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction the action of the respondents in not taking any action in pursuant to the report submitted by the 4th respondent vide R.C.No.102/2022/B dated 18.01.2023 for deletion of land in Sy. No. 206-2 to an extent of Ac. 2.00 cents out of Ac. 4.00 cents situated at Pulamathi Village, Lepakshi Mandal, Sri Sathya Sai District from prohibitory list notified under section 22 (A) of Registration Act, 1908 is illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents forthwith issue necessary orders for deletion of land in Sy. No.

¶19

Page 2 of 3

¶20

206-2 to an extent of Ac. 2.00 cents out of Ac. 4.00 cents situated at Pulamathi Village, Lepakshi Mandal Sri Sathya Sai District from prohibited list under section 22A-(1)(A) of Stamps and Registration Act, 1908 forthwith and to pass such

¶21

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶22

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 to direct the respondents to act upon the report vide R.C.No.102/2022/B dated 18.01.2023 submitted by the 4th respondent and issue necessary orders for deletion of land in Sy.No.206-2 to an extent of Ac.No.2.00 cents out of Ac.No.4.00 cents situated at Pulanathi Village, Lepakshi Mandal, Sri Sathya Sai District from prohibited list under section 22A-(1)(A) of Stamps & Registration Act, 1908 forthwith, pending disposal of the writ petition and to pass such

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶24

1.N ASWARTHA NARAYANA

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶26

1.GP FOR REVENUE

¶27

The Court made the following:

¶28

ORDER

¶29

Heard Sri S.Mahendra, learned counsel representing Sri N.Aswartha Narayana, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Divya Teja, Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, for the respondents.

¶30

Assailing the inaction of 2^nd respondent pursuant to report submitted by the 4^th respondent vide Rc.No.102/2022/B, dated 18.01.2023 (Ex.P1) for deletion of land of an extent of Ac.2.00 cents, out of Ac.4.00 cents in S.No.206-2 of Pulamathi Village, Lepakshi Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District, from the list the prohibited properties under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908, the above writ petition is filed.

¶31

Page 3 of 3

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of the aforementioned land, having purchased the same under two registered sale deeds. He would submit that the petitioner made an application seeking to delete the subject land from the list of prohibited properties under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908. The 4^th respondent Tahsildar submitted a report (Ex.P1) to the 2^nd respondent-District Collector; however, the authority has not passed any order to date.

¶33

Sri Divya Teja, Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondents, on instructions, would submit that the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.444, Revenue (Registration-I) Department, dated 22.07.2026 and as per the said G.O., the competent authority to deal with the issue is 3^rd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer. He would submit that appropriate orders will be passed pursuant to Ex.P1 report vis-à-vis the request made by the petitioner to delete the land of an extent of Ac.2.00 cents, out of Ac.4.00 cents in S.No.206-2 of Pulamathi Village, Lepakshi Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District.

¶34

Given the facts and circumstances of the case, keeping the writ petition pending and inviting a counter will not serve any purpose.

¶35

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the admission stage with the consent of learned counsel on either side, directing the learned respondents 2 and 3 to pass appropriate orders pursuant to the report submitted by the 4^th respondent vide Rc. No.102/2022/B, dated 18.01.2023 (Ex.P1) strictly as per the law, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs.

¶36

As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.

¶37

___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶38

PVD

Sri S. Bilal, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri S. Bilal, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases