Disposed

Kosanapalle Rajamohan Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC10 Sept 2026WP/25993/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition filed under Article 226 challenging inaction by the Revenue Department. The court directed the 2nd respondent to expedite disposal of an interim application and the subsequent revision petition within 10 days, dispensing with notice to the 5th respondent.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 2nd respondent to dispose of the interim application and subsequent revision within 10 days.

Kosanapalle Rajamohan Reddy Vs The State of Andhra… — Land Acquisition | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

APHC010474972026

¶2

[3331]

¶3

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

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 11^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 25993/2026

¶7

Between:

¶8

KOSANAPALLE RAJAMOHAN REDDY, S/O, K.V.RANGA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC ADVOCATE AND AGRICULTURIST, ALURU VILLAGE, TADIPATRI MANDAL, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT, PERMANENTLY RESIDING AT D.NO. 42-114, GOWLI STREET KURNOOL CITY AND DISTRICT

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

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

¶12

THE JOINT COLLECTOR, ANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, ANANTHAPUR-515001

¶13

THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ANANTHAPUR, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT-515001

¶14

THE TAHSILDHAR, TADIPATRI MANDAL, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT515411

¶15

LAKSMIREDDYGARI RANGANADHA REDDY, S/O. L. RANGA REDDY, ALURU VILLAGE, TADIPATRI MANDAL, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT 515415

¶16

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶17

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 an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the 2nd respondent in passing orders in the revision filed by the petitioners along with stay vide Revision Petition No. /2026(D4), dated 03.07.2026 filed against the impugned orders of the 3rd respondent vide D.Dis.No.D2(B)/1716/2025, dated

¶18

Page 2 of 4

¶19

11.05.2026 in deleting the revenue entries standing in the name of the petitioner to an extent of Ac.2.45 cents in Sy.No.827 and Ac.2.19 cents in Sy.No. 828 of Aluru Village, Tadipatri Mandal, Ananthapur District with a direction to incorporate the name of the 5th respondent after lapse of 17 years in most illegal and capricious manner, as illegal, arbitrary, and consequently direct the respondents not to alter the revenue records of the aforesaid petitioners lands till the disposal of revision before 2nd respondent

¶20

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶21

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 not to alter the revenue entries existing in the name of the petitioner to an extent of Ac. 2.45 cents in Sy.No. 827 and Ac. 2.19 cents in Sy.No. 828 of Aluru Village, Tadipatri Mandal, Ananthapur District pending revision vide Revision Petition No. /2026(D4), dated 03.07.2026 before the 2 nd respondent filed against the impugned orders of the 3rd respondent vide D.Dis.No.D2(B)/1716/2025, dated 11.05.2026, pending disposal of the above Writ petition

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶23

1.K RATHANGA PANI REDDY

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶25

1.GP FOR REVENUE

¶26

The Court made the following order:

¶27

Heard Sri K.Rathanga Pani Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Divya Teja, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondents 1 to 4. Notice in respect of the 5^th respondent is dispensed with, since no adverse order has been passed affecting his right or interest.

¶28

The grievance of the petitioner is that the 2^nd respondent is not passing any order in the revision vide Rc.No.3557/2026/Co-Ordn.ROR under Section 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (hereafter referred to as ‘Act’) and Rule 23 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Rules, 1989; the above writ petition is filed.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, against the order passed by the 3^rd respondent vide D.Dis.No.D2(B)/1716/2025 dated 11.05.2026 (Ex.P1), the petitioner filed a statutory revision vide Ex.P2.

¶30

Page 3 of 4

¶31

Learned counsel would further submit that, along with the revision, the petitioner also sought interim relief. However, no orders have been passed so far.

¶32

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue would submit that the revision has been taken up and necessary orders will be passed.

¶33

Whenever an interlocutory application is filed along with the appeal or revision, seeking stay or other ancillary reliefs, passing an order with immediate effect ensures that one party does not suffer irreversible or legal damage while the main case is pending. In fact, the immediate orders prevent either party or the inferior authority from altering or destroying the property, which may result in another unwarranted litigation.

¶34

Given the facts and circumstances of the case, keeping the writ petition pending and inviting a counter will not serve any purpose. Hence, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission with the consent of learned counsel appearing on either side, directing the learned 2^nd respondent to dispose of interim application made by the petitioner in the revision filed by the petitioner against the order passed by 3^rd respondent vide D.Dis.No.D2(B)/1716/2025 dated 11.05.2026 (Ex.P1), by following due procedure, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within 10 days from today by following due procedure. Thereafter, the 2^nd respondent shall dispose of the revision by following due procedure, as expeditiously as possible. There shall be no order as to costs. . The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue shall inform the learned 2^nd respondent about the order.

¶35

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶36

___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

Date: 11.09.2026 SNI

Page 4 of 4

142

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶41

WRIT PETITION NO: 25993 OF 2026

¶42

Date: 11.09.2026 SNI

Kosanapalle Rajamohan Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kosanapalle Rajamohan Reddy 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