Disposed

Konakalla Leela Lakshman Rao v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC10 Sept 2026WP/22652/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of this writ petition concerning the mutation of property records. The Court directed the fourth respondent, the Tahsildar, to consider the petitioner's representations and pass an order strictly adhering to the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971, and Rules, while affording an opportunity of hearing.

What did the court decide?

The petition was disposed of, directing the 4th respondent to consider the representations dated 18.07.2024 and 28.01.2026 and pass an order strictly adhering to the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and

Konakalla Leela Lakshman Rao Vs the State of Andhra… — Land Acquisition | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

APHC010416342026

¶2

[3331]

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

FRIDAY, THE 11^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 22652/2026

¶9

Between:

¶10

KONAKALLA LEELA LAKSHMAN RAO, S/O.VEERA RAGHAVA RAO, RETIRED EMPLOYEE, AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS, R/O MACHILIPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT, A.P.

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

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

¶14

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, NTR DISTRICT AT VIJAYAWADA.520001

¶15

THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, TIRUVURU, NTR DISTRICT. 520001

¶16

THE TAHASILDAR, VISSANNAPETA MANDAL, NTR DISTRICT. 520001

¶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 toIssue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS declaring the inaction of the respondents in considering the representations, dated 18.07.2024 and 28-01-2026 as highly illegal, improper, arbitrary, and violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14,19, 21 and 300A of the constitution of India and

¶19

Page 2 of 3

¶20

consequently direct the respondents to mutate the name of the petitioner in revenue records

¶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 Direct the respondents to consider the representation dated 28-01-2026, pending disposal of the above writ petition

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶24

1.B VAMSI KRISHNA

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶26

1.GP FOR REVENUE

¶27

The Court made the following:

¶28

ORDER

¶29

Heard Sri B.Vamsi Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Divya Teja, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, for the respondents.

¶30

The grievance of the petitioner is that the representations made by the petitioner dated 18.07.2024 and 28.01.2026, to mutate his name in the records of rights in respect of Ac.4.77 cents and Ac.0.56 cents, total extent of Ac.5.33 cents in R.S.No.570 of Vissannapeta village and Mandal, NTR District, have not been considered.

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the absolute owner of the aforementioned property. The petitioner made representations dated 18.07.2024 and thereafter on 28.01.2026, to update the Records of Rights in his name. The petitioner made representations; since online application is not accepted, the 4^th respondent failed to consider the same.

¶32

Page 3 of 3

¶33

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondents, on instructions, while not disputing the representations made by the petitioner, would submit that the 4^th respondent will consider the representations strictly as per the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 and the Rules made thereunder.

¶34

Given the instructions of the 4^th respondent-Tahsildar, keeping the writ petition and inviting a counter will not serve any purpose.

¶35

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the 4^th respondent-Tahsildar to consider the representations dated 18.07.2024 and 28.01.2026 made by the petitioner and pass an appropriate order strictly adhering to the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 and the Rules made thereunder. The 4^th respondent shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or any other stakeholders during the enquiry. No order as to costs.

¶36

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

¶37

___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶38

PVD

Konakalla Leela Lakshman Rao v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Konakalla Leela Lakshman Rao 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