Disposed¶27

Guddeti Srinivasulu, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC7 Jan 2026WP/746/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Andhra Pradesh High Court at Amaravati; Writ Petition No.746 of 2026; Justice D. Ramesh; decided 08.01.2026; Article 226 mandamus for delay in disposal of revenue appeal Rc.D/874/2025 dated 22.09.2025 pending before RDO Kanigiri; lands in Podili Village/Mandal, Prakasam District (Sy. Nos. 466/1, 379/5, 379/7, 379/8); allegations under Articles 14 and 300A; writ disposed without examining merits; direction to dispose appeal within four (04) months; no costs; miscellaneous petitions closed.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No.3 (Revenue Divisional Officer, Kanigiri) to consider and dispose of the petitioner's appeal Rc.D/874/2025 dated 22.09.2025 in accordance with law, completing the exercise within four (04) months from receipt of a copy of the order; no costs; pending Miscellaneous Petitions closed. ¶27

Guddeti Srinivasulu, Vs State of Andhra… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether the failure of respondent No.3 (Revenue Divisional Officer, Kanigiri) to consider and dispose of the petitioner's appeal Rc.D/874/2025 dated 22.09.2025 relating to Sy. Nos. 466/1, 379/5, 379/7 and 379/8 of Podili Village is arbitrary and illegal, and what direction the Court should issue regarding its disposal.

¶26

Court's answer

The Court declined to enter into the merits of the underlying land dispute, confining itself to the procedural lapse of respondent No.3.

¶27

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition is disposed of by directing respondent No.3 to consider and dispose of the petitioner's appeal bearing Rc.D/874/2025 dated 22.09.2025 and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶27

Key takeaways

The disposal exercise shall be completed within a period of four (04) months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, and no costs were imposed.ratio¶27
Any Miscellaneous Petitions pending in the writ petition shall stand closed consequentially.ratio¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition No.746 of 2026 (Andhra Pradesh High Court, Amaravati; Justice D. Ramesh; 08.01.2026): The petitioner, an agriculturist, complained that respondent No.3, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kanigiri, had failed to consider and dispose of his appeal Rc.D/874/2025 dated 22.09.2025 concerning land in Podili Village and Mandal, Prakasam District (Sy. No. 466/1 admeasuring Ac. 2.02 cents; Sy. No. 379/5 admeasuring Ac. 0.08 cents; Sy. No. 379/7 admeasuring Ac. 0.05 cents; Sy. No. 379/8 admeasuring Ac. 2.17 cents), alleging the inaction to be arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 300A of the Constitution. Without entering the merits of the dispute, the Court disposed of the writ petition directing respondent No.3 to consider and dispose of the appeal and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, completing the exercise within four (04) months from receipt of a copy of the order; no costs; pending Miscellaneous Petitions closed.

¶1

APHC010721272025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶3

[3208]

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

THURSDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 746/2026

¶9

Between:

¶10

GUDDETI SRINIVASULU,, S/O LATE GUDDETI NARASIMHAM, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS HINDU, AGRICULTURIST, R/O GUDDETIVARI STREET, PODILI VILLAGE AND MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT-523240

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRI SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIATE, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT- 522237 A.P

¶14

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT523001

¶15

THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KANIGIRI, PRAKASAM DISTRICT A- P.-523230

¶16

THE THASILDAR, PODILI, PRAKASAM DISTRICT-523240

¶17

GUDDETI KALAIAH, S/O LATE KRISHNAJAH, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,

¶18

GUDDETI SRINIVASARAO, S/O LATE KRISHNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,

¶19

GUDDETI CHANDRA, S/O LATE KRISHNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS. ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF GUDDETIVARI STREET, PODILI VILLAGE AND MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT-523240

¶20

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶21

The Court made the following ORDER:

¶22

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

¶23

<to issue an appropriate writ, order, or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction of the Respondent no. 3 in not disposing the petitioner appeal Rc.D/874/2025 dated 2209-2025 pertaining to land situated in Podili Village of Podili Mandal, Sy. No. 466/1, admeasuring Ac. 2.02 cents, Sy. No. 379/5, admeasuring Ac. 0.08 cents, Sy. No. 379/7, admeasuring Ac. 0.05 cents, Sy. No. 379/8, admeasuring Ac. 2.17 cents is illegal, arbitrary unjust and violative of the petitioners fundamental rights guaranteed under article 14 and 300A of constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondent no. 3 to dispose of the Appeal in Appeal No. Rc/D874/2025 dated 22-09-2025 on the file of the Court of Revenue Divisional Officer, Kanigiri, expeditiously, preferably within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, in accordance with law and to pass….=

¶24

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

¶25

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.3 has failed to consider and dispose of the petitioner’s appeal bearing Rc.D/874/2025 dated 22.09.2025, relating to land situated in Podili Village of Podili Mandal, comprising Survey No.466/1 admeasuring Ac.2.02 cents, Survey No.379/5 admeasuring Ac.0.08 cents, Survey No.379/7 admeasuring Ac.0.05 cents, and Survey

¶26

No.379/8 admeasuring Ac.2.17 cents, and that such inaction on the part of the respondent is arbitrary and illegal.

¶27

Considering the same, this Court is not inclined to go into the merits of the matter. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the respondent No.3 to consider and dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner bearing Rc.D/874/2025 dated 22.09.2025, and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of four (04) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

¶28

Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition shall stand closed.

¶29

________________________ JUSTICE D. RAMESH 08.01.2026 klk

¶30

172

¶31

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH

¶32

WRIT PETITION No.746 of 2026

¶33

08.01.2026 klk

Guddeti Srinivasulu, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Guddeti Srinivasulu, v. 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

K Shoba Rani Vs the State of Ap

Koruprolu Naidu Vs the State of Ap

Shaik Jaffarhussane Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt.Singuru Santha Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

E Yashodhamma Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Nagireddy Sreekanth Reddy Vs the State of Ap