THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL

ORDER

This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

“…to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring that action of the 2^nd respondent in issuing the Proceedings No.D1/1257/2024, dated 08.04.2025 and 12.04.2025 without considering my explanation dated 19.04.2025 and 11.04.2025 which is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and violation of Article 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and forthwith to consider my online application No.2400000596 dated 18.01.2024 and against the principles of Natural Justice…”

2. Heard Ms. Sangeetha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. H.Rakesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the writ petitioner filed W.P.No.27342 of 2024 for not considering his online application No.2400000596, dated 18.01.2024. This Court on 01.10.2024 had passed the order. The operative portion of the order is extracted hereunder:

“…5. In the light of the said submission, this writ petition is disposed of, directing respondent No.2 to consider and dispose of the online application vide No.2400000596, dated

18.01.2024 submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law by putting the petitioner, respondent No.5 and all affected parties on notice and affording them an opportunity. If respondent No.2 is not inclined to accept the request made by the petitioner, he shall pass a reasoned order and communicate the copy of the said order to the petitioner. He shall complete the said exercise within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.”

4. She would submit that without reference to the merits of the application made by the petitioner herein, respondent No.2 has passed the impugned proceedings by relying upon the provisions under U.I.D.A.I., which is extracted hereunder:

“…Further it is noticed that as per the standard rules of U.I.D.A.I a) temporary residents, including Non-Resident Indians (NRIs) and resident foreign nationals, can apply for an Aadhaar card providing they have lived in India for at least 182 days in the 12 months preceding their application, b) for OCI card holders, the Aadhar issued will be valid only for a period of the years only, due to aadhar card secured irregularly and the same be used to get the land transferred in the online application No.2400000596.”

5. She would further submit that the case of the petitioner is that the application made by the petitioner is not duly considered by the respondent authorities. Without making any observations on the status of the petitioner’s application, the impugned proceedings have been issued by respondent No.2 alleging that the petitioner has suppressed the facts and obtained Aadhar Card, which is not the subject matter of the writ petition. She would further submit that if the petitioner violated any conditions of the provisions under U.I.D.A.I., the appropriate authority is U.I.D.A.I. She would further submit that the petitioner was acquired the land to an extent of Ac.1.03 guntas in Sy.No.25/AA (new Sy.No.25/AA/1) and to an extent of Ac.2.04 guntas of land in Sy.No.30 (new Sy.No.30/1), situated at Hanmajipet village, Vemulawada Mandal, Rajanna Siricilla District by way of succession from his father Late Adi Reddy. She would further submit that the petitioner is already holding the pattadar passbook and he made an application only for making correction of entries in online by deleting the wrong entries made in favour of his brother Tippireddy Venakta Reddy.

6. She would further submit that insofar as the petitioner’s rights over the said survey numbers are concerned, it is evident that the petitioner has been holding a pattadar passbook earlier and has now only submitted an application for online corrections and for issuance of an e-

pattadar passbook. But, respondent No.2, without goin