##PAGE1##

2026:APHC:21493

APHC010723002022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI [3458]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF APRIL

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA

WRIT PETITION NO: 42636 OF 2022

Between:

1. V EERI S D JASHUVA, S/O. SUDHARSHANAM, HINDU, MALE, AGED

58 YEARS, D. NO. 6- 26, EMPLOYEE, GIRINAGAR,

RANGASAMUDRAM VILLAGE, PORUMAMILLA MANDAL, KADAPA

DISTRICT.

2. V EERI PRASANTH KUMAR, S/O. AMBRAHAM, HINDU, MALE, AGED

41 YEARS, D. NO. 6- 26, PVT. EMPLOYEE, GIRINAGAR,

RANGASAMUDRAM VILLAGE, PORUMAMILLAPLANDAL., KADAPA

DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER(S)

AND

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

SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,

AMARAVATIHI.

2. T HE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KADAPA, KADPA DISTRICT.

3. T HE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, BADVEL, KADAPA DISTRICT.

4. T HE TAHSILDAR, PORUMAMILLA MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT.

5. P OTTIPOGU VIJAYA RAO, S/O. SIMSON, HINDU, MALE, AGED 41

YEARS, D. NO. 5- 26, EMPLOYEE, GIRINAGAR, RANGASAMUDRAM

VILLAGE, PORUMAMILLA MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT.

6. K ANDULA SESHAMMA, W/O. PEDA VENKATA SUBBAIAH, R/ O. 2-

35, RANGASAMUDRAM VILLAGE, PORUMAMILLA MANDAL,

KADAPA DISTRICT.

7. K ANDULA VENKATA RAMANAMMA, W/O. CHINN VENKATA

SUBBAIAH, R/O. 2-46, RANGASAMUDRAM VILLAGE,

2

2026:APHC:21493

PORUMAMILLA MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT.

8. K ANDULA MAHALAKSHMAMMA, W/O. VENKATESWARA RAO, R/

O. 2-67, RANGASAMUDRAM VILLAGE, PORUMAMILLA MANDAL,

KADAPA DISTRICT.

...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 tomay be pleased to issue Writ, Order, or Direction more particularly

one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the

respondents in alter to Revenue records in the name of 5th to 8th

Respondents to dry land an extent of acres 5-11 cents in Survey No. 1285/3

situated at Rangasamudram, Porumamilla Mandal, Kadapa District (which is

already in the name of Petitioner's grandmother), as illegal, arbitrary and

violative of principles of natural justice and contrary to the Revenue rules and

Andhra Prasdesh Revenue Act., and also violation of Articles 14, 21, 300A of

Indian Constitution. restore the Revenue records of the land an extent of acres

5-11 cents in Survey No. 1285/3 situated at Rangasamudram, Porumamilla

Mandal, Kadapa District (which is already in the name of Petitioner's

grandmother), and to pass such

IA NO: 1 OF 2022

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

may be pleased to direct the respondents not to issue the Pass Books of the

land an extent of acres 5-11 cents in Survey No. 1285/3 situated at

Rangasamudram, Porumamilla Mandal, Kadapa District (which is already in

the name of Petitioner's grandmother) to others, pending disposal of the Writ

Petition and to pass such

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

may be pleased to grant leave to the respondent No. 4 to file the counter

affidavit and pass

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. GANDHAM SR PRASAD

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR REVENUE

3

2026:APHC:21493

The Court made the following order:

Heard Sri Gandham SR Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners and

Sri M.Chandra Shekar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue

appearing for the respondents.

2. Despite service of notice on unofficial respondent Nos.5 to 8, no

appearance is entered on their behalf.

3. The grievance of the petitioners in the instant writ petition is against the

action of the respondents in not mutating the names of the petitioners in the

revenue records in respect of the subject land of an extent of Ac.5.11 cents in

Sy.No.1235/3 situated at Rangasamudram Village, Porumamilla Mandal,

Kadapa District.

4. It is contended that the petitioners’ grandmot