N Krishna Reddy Vs the State of Ap

¶1

[3233]

¶2

APHC010178182026

¶3

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

¶4

TUESDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN WRIT PETITION NO: 9132/2026

¶7

Between:

¶8

N KRISHNA REDDY, S/O. SUBBA REDDY, AGE 66 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O.4-32-1569/01, PHASE - II, SRI CHAKRADHARI NAGAR, ALWIN COLONY, KUKATPALLY HYDERABAD.

¶9

G. TYAGA RAJA REDDY, S/O.SRINIVASULU REDDY, AGE 56 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE R/O. D. NO. 2-18-2/1, MR PALLI, TIRUPATHI TOWN, TIRUPATHI MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

¶10

KUNAM PRABHAKAR REDDY, S/O. VENKATA KRISHNA REDDY, AGE 64 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O. FLAT NO. 506, A-BLOCK, NSL SUSANTHA, 5TH PHASE, KPHB COLONY, KUKATPALY, HYDERABAD.

¶11

P. HEMANTH KUMAR, S/O. T. SADHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O. PADIPETA VILLAGE TIRUCHANURU POST, TIRUPATI RURAL MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT.

¶12

...PETITIONER(S)

¶13

AND

¶14

THE STATE OF AP, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶15

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TIRUPATI DISTRICT.

¶16

THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT.

¶17

TAHSILDAR, TIRUPATI RURAL MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT.

¶18

MOVVA SIVA NAGESWARA RAO, S/O. AMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/O. D. NO.9-95/1, DAMINEEDU VILLAGE, TIRUPATI RURAL MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT.

¶19

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶20

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 any writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for records pertains to the orders in D. Dis. (G)/56/2023 dated 16-03-2026 on the file of 3rd respondent and quash the same and to pass

¶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 pleased to suspend the orders passed by the 3 respondent in D. Dis. (G)/56/2023 dated 16-03-2026 pending disposal of the writ petition and to pass

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶24

1.V V SATISH

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶26

1.GP FOR REVENUE

¶27

The Court made the following Order:

¶28

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent Nos1 to 4.

¶29

Issuance of notice to the 5^th respondent is dispensed with as no prejudice would cause even if it is disposed of in his absence.

¶30

This Writ Petition was filed questioning the order passed by the 3^rd respondent, dated 16.03.2026, in allowing the appeal of the 5^th respondent herein by directing the 4^th respondent to delete the names of the petitioners herein/respondent Nos.2 to 5 therein and to take action to mutate the name of the unofficial respondent herein/appellant therein for an extent of Ac.0.60 cents, only after following due process of law.

¶31

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the 4^th respondent has no jurisdiction to cancel the Ryotwari Patta granted by the Tahsildar, under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Inams Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari Act, 1956, by invoking powers under the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971.

¶32

On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 4, submits that the impugned order of the 3^rd respondent dated 16.03.2026, is an appealable order before the Joint Collector, Tirupati, within sixty (60) days from the date of receipt of that order.

¶33

In view of the above said facts and circumstances, as the petitioners are having an effective alternative remedy of revision before the Joint Collector, Tirupati, for the purpose of availing the same, the petitioners are directed to file revision against the said orders of the 3^rd respondent dated 16.03.2026, within the prescribed period of limitation. On filing of such revision, the same shall be disposed of strictly in accordance with law by the Joint Collector, Tirupati, by hearing all the parties concerned, including the

¶34

petitioners, 5^th respondent herein and others concerned, giving due opportunity, upon verification of the records and the subject land appropriate decision shall be taken on its own merits as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four (04) months thereafter.

¶35

Pending disposal of the said revision, there shall be an order of Status-quo as on today to be maintained with respect to mutation of names of the parties concerned over the subject land covered under the impugned order of the 3^rd respondent, dated 16.03.2026. In default of filing the revision by the petitioners as directed above, the interim protection granted by this Court automatically stands vacated.

¶36

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶37

As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶38

__________________________ JUSTICE B. KRISHNA MOHAN

¶39

Date: 07.04.2026 CVD

N Krishna Reddy v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N Krishna Reddy v. the State of Ap

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

Smt, Kondrakonda Samrajyam, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Sanapala Ramu Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt. Pusapati Madhuri Gajapathi Raju Vs the State of Ap

Medisetti Srinivasa Babu Vs the State of Ap

Jadala Giri Vijaya Kumari Vs the State of Ap

Vemula Venkata Padmavathi Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh