SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 16705

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
D RAMESH
SIGILIPALLI SUDHAKAR – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH – Respondent
WP 36380/2025



##PAGE1##

2025:APHC:59172

APHC010703662025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI [3208]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

WEDNESDAY,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH

WRIT PETITION NO: 36380/2025

Between:

1. S IGILIPALLI SUDHAKAR, S/O. NARASIMHULU AGED ABOUT 36

YEARS,R/O. 3-116, MALUGURU, HINDUPUR, SREE SATHYA SAI -

515212.

...PETITIONER

AND

1. T HE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL

SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT

BUILDINGS, AMARAVATI, ANDHRA PRADESH.522238

2. T HE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SREE SATYA SAI DISTRICT 515134

3. T HE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, HINDUPUR MANDAL, SREE

SATHYA SAI DISTRICT.515201

4. T HE TAHSILDAR, HINDUPUR MANDAL.515201

...RESPONDENT(S):

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 Writ Order or direction more particularly one in a nature of

Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent no.4 in not

mutating the name of the petitioner in the revenue records with respect to the

land in Sy. No. 14-1 to an extent of Ac.5.00 cents in Maluguru village,

Hindupur mandal, sree sathya sai district as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional

and consequently direct respondent no.4 to mutate the name of the petitioner

##PAGE2##

2

2025:APHC:59172

in an extent of Sy. No. 14-1 to an extent of Ac.5.00 cents in Maluguru village,

Hindupur mandal, sree sathya sai district and to pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

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 direct respondent no.4 to consider and dispose of the PGRS

application vide MUT251031033300 dated 03-11-2025 pending disposal of

the above writ petition and to pass

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. PILLIX LAW FIRM

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR REVENUE

##PAGE3##

3

2025:APHC:59172

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH

WRIT PETITION No.36380 OF 2025

ORDER:

The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India seeking the following relief:

“…to issue Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in a

nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the

respondent no.4 in not mutating the name of the petitioner in

the revenue records with respect to the land in Sy.No.14-1 to

an extent of Ac.5.00 cents in Maluguru village, Hindupur

Mandal, Sree Sathya Sai District, as illegal, arbitrary,

unconstitutional and consequently direct respondent no.4 to

mutate the name of the petitioner in an extent of Sy.No.14-1 to

an extent of Ac.5.00 cents in Maluguru Village, Hindupur

Mandal, Sree Sathya Sai District and to pass such other order

or orders…”

2. The short grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner is the absolute

owner of the land admeasuring Ac.5.00 cents in Sy.No.14-1 at Maluguru

Village, Hindupur Mandal, Sree Sathya Sai District. The petitioner acquired

the said land through registered sale deed vide Registration No.6564/2016.

Thereafter, the petitioner submitted an application vide MUT251031033300

dated 03.11.2025 requesting mutation of petitioner’s name in the revenue

records. However, the respondents have not considered the said application.

Hence, present writ petition has been filed.

3. Heard M/s.Pillix Law Firm, learned counsel for petitioner and learned

Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondents.

##PAGE4##

4

2025:APHC:59172

4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner has submitted

Form-6A application. Despite the same, the respondents have not mutated the

name of the petitioner.

5. In reply to the said contention, learned Assistant Government Pleader,

on instructions, submits that respondent authorities have rejected the

application on the ground that the petitioner had purchased the assigned land

in contravention of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of

Transfers) Act, 1977 and that an endorsement to that effect has already been

issu

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top