Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 20549
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Kiranmayee Mandava, J
Vallepu Chinna Ramanna – Appellant
Versus
The state of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO: 27603/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: S Krishna Reddy
For the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE
When territorial jurisdiction changes due to administrative district reorganization, pending legal proceedings must be transferred to the newly designated competent authority to ensure the right to adjudication.
Headnote:The petitioner approached the court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Mandamus against the inaction of the 3rd respondent in transferring a Revision Petition (R.C.No.1359 of 2020) filed under Section 9 of the Andhra Pradesh (Rights in Land) and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971. Due to the reorganization of the erstwhile Anathapuramu District and the formation of Sri Sathya Sai District, the subject matter of the petition now falls under the jurisdiction of the 4th respondent. The court found that the 3rd respondent no longer holds jurisdiction over the matter. The primary issue was whether the failure to transfer the case file following district bifurcation was arbitrary and in violation of the principles of natural justice. The court reasoned that since the 3rd respondent is no longer the competent authority for the area in question, the file must be transferred to the 4th respondent to ensure proper adjudication. With the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. grievance regarding the non-transfer of a pending revision petition following a change in territorial jurisdiction due to district reorganization. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. direction to transfer case files to the current competent authority when the previous authority loses jurisdiction due to administrative changes. (Para 4) |
| 3. formal disposal of the writ petition upon issuance of directions for administrative action. (Para 5) |
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
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 a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the inaction of the 3rd respondent in transferring the Revision Petition in R.C.No.1359 of 2020 from the office of the 3rd respondent i.e,. Joint Collector, Ananthapuramu to the the office of the 4th respondent i.e,. Joint Collector, Sri Sathya Sai District, Puttaparthyi.e., to 4th respondent as illegal, arbitrary, untenable, irrational without jurisdiction and in violation of the principles of natural justice and against to the fundamental rights under Article 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the office of the 3rd respondent i.e,. Joint Collector, Ananthapuramu to transfer Rc.No.1359 of 2020 to the office of the 4th respondent i.e Joint Collector, Sri Sathya Sai District, Puttaparthy due to bifurcation of erstwhile Anathapuramu District and formation of Sri Sathya Sai District, for adjudication and disposal of Rc. No. 1359 of 2020 as the subject matter of the Revision Petition falls under the jurisdiction of the the office of the 4th respondent i.e,. Joint Collector, Sri Sathya Sai District, Puttaparthi and 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 to direct the office of the 3rd respondent i.e,. Joint Collector, Ananthapuramu to transfer Rc.No. 1359 of 2020 to the office of the 4th respondent i.e joint Collector, Sri Sathya Sai District, Puttaparthy, for adjudication and disposal of Rc.No. 1359 of 2020, pending disposal of the Writ Petition and pass
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. S KRISHNA REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR REVENUE
The Court made the following Order:
Heard Sri S. Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents.
2. The grievance of the petitioner in the instant writ petition is against the inaction on the part of the respondent No.3 in transferring the Revision Petition, dated 29.02.2020 filed under Section 9 of the Record of Rights Act, 1971 & 1989, to the file of the respondent No.4 – Joint Collector, Sri Sathya Sai District, pursuant to the District reorganization.
3. It is stated that on account of the District reorganization, the jurisdiction over the Subject Revision Petition would lie with the respondent No.4 i.e., the Joint Collector, Sri Sathya District. However, the respondent No.3 did not take any steps for transferring the said file to the file of the respondent No.4. Being aggrieved of the same, the instant Writ Petition is filed.
4. Having regard to the contentions advanced, since the respondent No.3 is no longer holding the jurisdiction of the present case, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition directing the respondent No.3 to transfer the Revision Petition filed by the petitioner under Section 9 of the Andhra Pradesh (Rights in Land) and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 to the respondent No.4 as expeditiously as possible, not later than four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of the order. Upon such receipt of the Revision Petition from the respondent No.3, the respondent No.4 shall pass appropriate orders on the Revision Petition in accordance with law, after giving opp
