A writ of mandamus for inaction is not maintainable if the authority has already considered the representation and issued a reasoned decision based on field reports and evidence.

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 topleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, to declare the the inaction of the 2nd respondent in passing orders on the representation dt. 22-1-2025 submitted by the petitioner to set aside the Endorsement dt. 2-1-2025 and to allot sub-division to his land measuring ac. 0.29 cents situated at Tiruchanur village, Tirupati Rural Mandal, inspite of my personal visits followed by legal notice dt. 4-3-2025, as being illegal, arbitrary, unjust and unconstitutional and direct the 2nd respondent herein to allot sub-division to the above mentioned land which is part and parcel of Sy.No. 437/6E,

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

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 the respondent No.2 herein to consider and pass appropriate orders on the representation dt. 22- 1-2025, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition,

The Court made the following Order:

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents.

2. This writ petition is filed questioning the action of the 2nd respondent in not passing the orders on the representation dated 22.01.2025 submitted by the petitioner to set aside the endorsement dated 02.01.2025 and to allot sub-division to his land in an extent of Ac.0.29 cents situated at Tiruchanur Village, Tirupati Rural Mandal, in spite of personal visits of the petitioner followed by legal notice dated 04.03.2025.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 3rd respondent cannot direct the petitioner to approach the Tirupati Rural Tahsildar for the relief sought for by way of issuance of an endorsement dated 02.01.2025. The representation of the petitioner dated 22.01.2024 can only be disposed of by the 2nd respondent.

4. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents relying upon the written instructions of the 2nd respondent dated 29.01.2026 submits that as verified from the report submitted by the Deputy Inspector of Survey, R.D.O.’s Office, Tirupati, it reveals that basing upon the PGRS application, a notice was issued to the petitioner and Village Surveyor of Tiruchanur to attend the said survey. In the endorsement, it is also stated that in their observations Smt. Jayakanthamma expired and one Sri N.Venkatesh who is one of the sellers to the petitioner issued a detailed statement on Ac.0.29 cents in Sy.No.437/6E. The 3rd respondent sent an endorsement with a copy of the same to the petitioner on 02.01.2025 by RPAD. In the said endorsement, the Deputy Inspector of Survey concluded that the applicant is not in possession and enjoyment of land in Sy.No.437/6E and that as boundaries do not tally, subdivision of the scheduled land in Sy.No.437/6E is not feasible. The 3rd respondent further informed the applicant to approach the Tahsildar, Tirupati Rural, as the subdivision process falls under the jurisdiction of the Tahsildar’s Office, Tirupati Rural.

5. The Assistant Registrar (Institutions), Lokayukta of Andhra Pradesh registered a complaint received from the petitioner vide complaint No.828/2025/B2 and issued orders to the District Survey & Land Records Officer, Tirupati for examination and taking appropriate action. As per the directions of the I