Disposed

S Noor Mahammad v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC9 Sept 2026WP/24668/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged Revenue officials' potential interference with his agricultural land in a civil dispute. Court disposed of the writ petition and miscellaneous applications at admission stage upon consent of counsel, directing officials not to interfere without due process.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 3rd Respondent not to interfere with petitioner's agriculture land in S.No.247-B-1A without following due process of law.

S Noor Mahammad Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh — Landlord and Tenant | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

APHC010451122026

¶2

[3331]

¶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: 24668/2026

¶9

Between:

¶10

S NOOR MAHAMMAD, S/O LATE S MAHABOOB BASHA AGE 28 YEARS OCC CULTIVATION R/O 5 606 VANKAGADDA STREET GOOTY RS GOOTY MANDAL ANANTAPUR DISTRICT 515401

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE SECRETARIAT VELAGAPUDI GUNTUR DISTRICT 522237

¶14

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT 515401

¶15

THE TAHSILDHAR MANDAL EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE, GOOTY MANDAL ANANTAPUR DISTRICT 515401

¶16

P VENKATA RAMANA, S/O P HAMPAIAH AGE 55 YEARS OCC BUSINESS R/O 15 605 GOOTY RS GOOTY MANDAL ANANTAPUR DISTRICT 515401

¶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 a Writ order or direction more particularly one in nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action on the part of Officials of Respondent No.3 in interfering with civil dispute there by demanding Petitioner to forfeit his rights in favor of Respondent No.4 with respect to Petitioner's Agriculture Land in Survey No.247 B 1A admeasuring an extent of Ac 3 76 Cents situated at Chetnepalli Revenue Village Gooty Mandal Anantapur District the

¶19

Page 2 of 3

¶20

Suit Subject Properties of OS.No.38 of 2010 on the file of The Court of Junior Civil Judge Gooty as illegal arbitrary and consequently direct the Officials of Respondent No.3 to not to interfere with Petitioner's Agriculture Land in Survey No.247 B 1A admeasuring an extent of Ac 3 76 Cents situated at Chetnepalli Revenue Village Gooty Mandal Anantapur District

¶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 Officials of Respondent No.3 to not to interfere with Petitioner's Agriculture Land in Survey No.247 B 1A admeasuring an extent of Ac 3 76 Cents situated at Chetnepalli Revenue Village Gooty Mandal Anantapur District

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶24

1.N CHANDRA SEKHAR REDDY

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶26

1.GP FOR REVENUE

¶27

The Court made the following:

¶28

ORDER

¶29

Heard Sri N.Chandra Sekhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Chandra Sekhar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondents.

¶30

The grievance of the petitioner is that the 3^rd respondent is attempting to dispossess the petitioner from an extent of Ac.3.76 cents in S.No.247-B-1A of Chetnepalli Revenue Village, Gooty Mandal, Anantapur District, without following due procedure.

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner’s father was assigned the aforementioned land and after the demise of his father, the petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. He would submit that the petitioner’s name was updated in the Records of Rights and ROR 1B and pattadar pass book are filed as Exs.P1 and P2.

¶32

Page 3 of 3

¶33

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondents submitted the written instructions of 3^rd respondent-Tahsildar, wherein it was stated thus:

¶34

“It is submitted that the Tahsildar, Gooty Mandal has not issued any proceedings in respect of the land in Sy.No.247-A and not disturbed the existing status of the said land. In the event that any proceedings are required to be initiated in respect of the said land, the same will be undertaken strictly in accordance with the provisions of the relevant law, after duly intimating the writ petitioner and affording him/her sufficient opportunity to submit his/her version. … …”

¶35

Given the instructions of the 3^rd respondent-Tahsildar, keeping the writ petition and inviting a counter will not serve any purpose.

¶36

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the admission stage with the consent of learned counsel on either side, directing the 3^rd respondent not to interfere with an extent of Ac.3.76 cents in S.No.247-B-1A of Chetnepalli Revenue Village, Gooty Mandal, Anantapur District, without following due process of law. No order as to costs.

¶37

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

¶38

___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶39

PVD

S Noor Mahammad v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S Noor Mahammad 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases