Disposed

Puli Krishna v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC14 Sept 2026WP/25539/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus directing the Joint Collector, Bapatla District to pass orders on a pending Revision Petition concerning land dispute. The Joint Collector submitted that the revision petition is under active enquiry, a survey was directed on 28.03.2026, and the report is awaited. The High Court disposed of the writ petition at the admission stage with consent of both sides, directing the 2nd respondent to dispose of the revision petition after giving both parties an opportunity of hearing, preferably within two months.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of at admission stage; direction to 2nd respondent (Joint Collector) to dispose of Revision Petition No.Rc.D2/2995/2011 after hearing both parties, preferably within two months from receipt of the order.

Puli Krishna Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

APHC010466322026

¶2

[3331]

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 15^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 25539/2026

¶8

Between:

¶9

PULI KRISHNA, S/O JAGANNADHAM, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, AGRICULTURE, RIO KOTHAPALEM VILLAGE, VETAPALEM MANDAL, BAPATLA DISTRICT

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETERIAT BUILDING AMARAVATI. 522-2-9

¶13

THE JOINT COLLECTOR, BAPATLA DISTRICT, BAPATLA.

¶14

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶15

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 order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Manadamus declaring the inaction of the 2nd Respondent in passing the orders in Revision perition No.Rc.D2/2995/2011 filed against the order vide D.Dis.C/3852/2010 dt.25.08.2011 filed by the Petitioner is illegal, arbitrary, capricious, unjust and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300A of Constitution of India. Consequently, direct the 2nd Respondent to pass orders in the Revision Petition filed by the Petitioner by forthiiih within a stipulated time and to pass

¶16

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶17

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

¶18

Page 2 of 3

¶19

direct the 2nd Respondent to pass orders in the Revision Petition No.Rc.D2/2995/2011 filed by the Petitioner by forthwith within a stipulated time pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶21

1.N A RAMACHANDRA MURTHY

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶23

1.GP FOR REVENUE

¶24

The Court made the following:

¶25

ORDER

¶26

Heard Sri N.A.Ramachandra Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Divya Teja, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, for the respondents.

¶27

The above writ petition is filed to declare the inaction of the 2^nd respondent in passing the orders in Revision Petition No.Rc.D2/2955/2011 filed against the order vide D.Dis.C/3852/2010, dated 25.08.2011, filed by the petitioner, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶28

Sri Divya Teja, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, submitted the written instructions of the 2^nd respondent-Joint Collector, wherein it was stated thus:

¶29

“It is further submitted that, the then Joint Collector, Prakasam District had taken a Revision Petition vide Rc.D2/2995/2011 on 05.11.2011. Several Notices were also issued and several hearing and arguments were also conducted. The Petitioner had not submitted any relevant documents during hearing while asking the proof of documents to the petitioner, the petitioner oftenly taken adjournments to submit the proofs. After district bifurcation, this file was transferred to Bapatla District. This Revision Petition was taken on file and hearing were also conducted vide Rc.B6/2487/2023, dated 22.07.2023 in the

¶30

Page 3 of 3

¶31

newly formed District. … … During the hearing conducted on 28.03.2026, both parties requested to survey the above said land. Accordingly, the Joint Collector (2^nd respondent), Bapatla instructed the Tahsildar, Vetapalem to survey the above said lands and directed to report compliance within 15 days. The report from the Tahsildar, Vetapalem is awaited. The Tahsildar, Vetapalem is engaged busy work with Census and Special Intensive Revision (SIR, 2026). Neither the petitioner nor the respondent in this case were being attended the survey work while notices were given to them for survey and any of them were not approached the Tahsildar, Vetapalem for survey.

¶32

The Revision Petition is under enquiry and it will be disposed as expeditiously as possible and the orders will be communicated to the petitioner within a short period.”

¶33

Given the written instructions of 2^nd respondent-Joint Collector, keeping the writ petition pending and inviting a counter will not serve any purpose.

¶34

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the admission stage, with the consent of learned counsel on either side, directing the learned 2^nd respondent to dispose of the revision (Ex.P1), by giving an opportunity of hearing to both parties and pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs.

¶35

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

¶36

___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶37

PVD

Puli Krishna v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Puli Krishna 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