L Rama Murthy Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

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 an appropriate writ or any other order or direction particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 4th respondent in issuing the impugned endorsement vide through online vide grievance no SSTS202601031415 dated 03.01.2026 in respect of the land of the petitioner being an extent of Ac.2.36 cents in Sy. No. 57-2 situated at Halukuru Revenue Village, Amarapuram Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District is as

¶19

2

¶20

HBKM,J W.P.No.1576 of 2026

¶21

illegal, arbitrary, violation of Art.14, 21 and 300-A of the constitution of India and contrary to the provisions of AP Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971, and also violation of principles of natural justice, and consequently set-aside same 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 stay of all further proceedings pursuant to impugned endorsement vide through online vide grievance no SSTS202601031415 dated 03.01.2026 in respect of the land of the petitioner being an extent of Ac.2.36 cents in Sy. No. 57-2 situated at Halukuru Revenue Village, Amarapuram Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District issued by the 4th respondent, pending disposal of the main writ petition and to pass

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶25

1.P NARASIMHULU

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶27

1.GP FOR REVENUE

¶28

3

¶29

HBKM,J W.P.No.1576 of 2026

¶30

The Court made the following Order:

¶31

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondents.

¶32

This writ petition is filed questioning the action of the 4^th respondent in issuing the impugned endorsement through online vide grievance no.SSTS202601031415 dated 03.01.2026 in respect of the land of the petitioner being an extent of Ac.2.36 cents in Sy.No.57-2 situated at Halukuru Revenue Village, Amarapuram Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District.

¶33

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned online user information furnished by the 4^th respondent shown as mismatch between the possession and web land record. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition is filed.

¶34

On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader relying upon the written instructions of the 4^th respondent dated 07.01.2026 submits that the petitioner gave representation through PGRS online dated 06.01.2026 and 03.01.2026 and the above said online petitions are under active consideration by the office of the 4^th respondent, as it is under enquiry by the field functionaries. The 4^th respondent has not issued any endorsement through online stating that “mismatch between possession and web land record” and which is totally wrong and mis-perception by the petitioner. The said sentence is the option selected as sub-subject drop down box while

¶35

4

¶36

HBKM,J W.P.No.1576 of 2026

¶37

submitting the application in PGRS online website by the petitioner. The 4^th respondent has not given any endorsement to the petitioner on the above said online applications of the petitioner, as it is still under enquiry. The comprehensive enquiry shall be completed expeditiously by following the due procedure.

¶38

In view of the above said facts and circumstances, as there are specific written instructions of the 4^th respondent dated 07.01.2026, recording the same, this writ petition becomes premature and as such, no orders can be passed in this writ petition. However, liberty is given to the petitioner, if any endorsement is given by the 4^th respondent on the above said online applications of the petitioner and if so aggrieved, it is open for the petitioner to assail the same in accordance with law.

¶39

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of. Interim order if any deemed to have been vacated. There shall be no order as to costs. The written instructions of the 4^th respondent dated 07.01.2026 shall be made as part of the Court record.

¶40

As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶41

__________________________ JUSTICE B. KRISHNA MOHAN

¶42

21.01.2026 PGT

L Rama Murthy v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

L Rama Murthy 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

Kanchi Desamma Vs the State of Ap

Kollipara Naga Rajesh Vs the State of Ap

R Chandra Sekhar Naidu Vs the State of Andhra Apradesh

Doki Bhavani, Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Nakka Premalatha Vs the State of Ap

K Sahadeva Vs the State of Ap