Eswar Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

SRI L MAHADEVA NAIDU, S/O.NARAYANASWAMY NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O.FLAT NO.301, LMK RESIDENCY, SRI VISWA LAYOUT, OTERU, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT.

¶18

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶19

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

¶20

2

¶21

BKM,J W.P.No.9384 of 2026

¶22

pleased topleased to issue appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF CERITORARI to call for the records to quash the order of the 3rd respondent in Roc.C/1546/2025, Dt 20-032026(served to the petitioner through Speed Post on 30-03-2026) cancelled the Webland entires in the name of the petitioner pertaining to land in Sy.No.71/16A an extent of Ac.0.78 Cents of Srinivasapuram Village, Yerpedu Mandal, Tirupati District directed the 5th respondent to conduct Denovo enquiry as per Section 6 of AP Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 as arbitrary, illegal against Article 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequentially to take action against the Respondents No.3 and 4 for illegally passing order in Contrary to Section 5(5) of AP Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971

¶23

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶24

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 operation of the order of the 3rd respondent in Roc.C/1546/2025, Dt;20-03-2026(served to the petitioner through Speed Post on 30-03-2026) pending disposal of the above writ petition

¶25

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶26

1.CHALLA SIVASANKAR

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶28

1.GP FOR REVENUE

¶29

3

¶30

BKM,J W.P.No.9384 of 2026

¶31

The Court made the following Order:

¶32

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 5.

¶33

The issuance of notice to the 6^th respondent is dispensed with as no prejudice would cause to him even if it is disposed of in his absence.

¶34

This writ petition is filed questioning the order passed by the 3^rd respondent dated 20.03.2026 in the matter of mutation of the names of the parties concerned with respect to the subject land with an extent of Ac.0.60 cents in Sy.No.71/16 of Sreenivasapuram Village, Yerpedu Mandal, Tirupati District.

¶35

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order was passed by the 3^rd respondent dated 20.03.2026 on the complaint given by the 6^th respondent herein seeking cancellation of the mutation of the name of the petitioner herein in the revenue records for the subject land. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the 6^th respondent has not approached the authority concerned, following the due procedure and without jurisdiction, the 3^rd respondent entertained the same and passed the above said impugned order directing the 5^th respondent to conduct de-nova enquiry basing upon the material available and possession of the land to issue pattadar passbooks and title deeds as per the Section 6 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and

¶36

4

¶37

BKM,J W.P.No.9384 of 2026

¶38

Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 by following the due process of law. The web land entries pertaining to the subject land recorded in the name of the petitioner herein were cancelled though the petitioner has got an appeal time of 60 days to approach the Joint Collector, Tirupati. The 5^th respondent herein hurriedly implemented the orders of the 3^rd respondent dated 20.03.2026.

¶39

On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 5 submits that the petitioner can avail the alternative effective remedy of revision before the Joint Collector and if so, the same will be considered by the said authority, following the due procedure.

¶40

In view of the above said facts and circumstances, the petitioner is permitted to file revision under ROR Act, 1971 before the Joint Collector, Tirupati against the impugned order of the 3^rd respondent dated 20.03.2026 within a period of limitation. On filing of the same, the said revisional authority/the Joint Collector, Tirupati shall consider and dispose of the same strictly in accordance with law, by hearing all the parties concerned, including the petitioner and the 6^th respondent herein, 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. Pending the revision, there shall be an order of status quo as on today to be maintained with respect to the mutation of the names of the parties concerned over the subject land covered under the

¶41

5

¶42

BKM,J W.P.No.9384 of 2026

¶43

impugned order of the 3^rd respondent dated 20.03.2026. In default of filing the revision by the petitioner as directed above, the interim protection granted by this Court stands automatically vacated.

¶44

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of. Interim order if any deemed to have been vacated. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶45

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

¶46

__________________________ JUSTICE B. KRISHNA MOHAN

¶47

09.04.2026 PGT

Eswar Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Eswar Reddy v. The 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

Akkina Lakshmi Narayana Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Erla Madavaiah, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Velicheti Sundara Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Jammu Surekha Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

P. Amaranadha Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

V C Gangadhar Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh