Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Meda Sravan Kumar Reddy vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 12 December, 2025
Author: D Ramesh
Bench: D Ramesh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
E
(SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION)
FRIDAY,THE TWELFTH DAY OF DECEMBER
VWU
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
:PRESENT: I
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH
WRIT PETITION NO: 34748 OF 2025
Between:
Meda Sravan Kumar Reddy, S/o. Meda Vijay Bhaskar Reddy Aged about
36 years, Occ Software Employee, R/o. Chennaiahgari Palli Village,
Nandalur Mandal, Annamayya District.
... Petitioner
AND
1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep!; by its Principal Secretary Revenue
Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur
District.
2. The District Collector, Annamayya District, Rayachoty.
3. The Joint Collector, Annamayya District, Rayachoty.
4. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajampet Revenue Division
Annamayya District.
5. The Tahsildar,Nandalur Mandal, Annamayya District.
6. The Sub-Registrar, Rajampeta, Annamayya District.
.... Respondents
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying that
in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may
be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly
one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the orders in D
Dis.(D2)/427/2025, dated 27.11.2025 passed by the respondent No.3 ordering
deletion of Web land entries, to initiate the proceedings under Section 4 of the
Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 for
resumption of the land and authorizing the respondent No.4 to execute
cancellation deeds in respect of the land in extent of Ac. 1.50 cents in
Sy.No.1316-4, Ac.2.11 cents in Sy.No. 1333-5 and Ac. 1.85 cents in Sy.No.
1340/5 of Lebaka Village fields, Nandalur Mandal, Annamayya District, under
the purported exercise of the powers conferred under section 9 of the Andhra
Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 as arbitrary,
illegal, quite contrary to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land
and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 and also the well established legal
principles apart from being violative of the fundamental and Constitutional
rights guaranteed to me under Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the
Constitution of India and consequently set aside the orders in D
Dis.(D2)/427/2025, dated 27.11.2025 passed by the respondent No.3.
. :i
lA NO: 1 OF 2025
Petition under Section 15t CPC is filed praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High
Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in pursuance of
the orders in D.Dis.(D2)/427/2025, dated 27.11.2025 passed by the
respondent No.3, Pending disposal of WP 34748 of 2025, on the file of the
High Court.
The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the
affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of SRI V R
REDDY KOWURI Advocate for the Petitioner, GP FOR REVENUE for the
Respondent Nos.1 to 5, GP FOR STAMPS ®ISTRATION for Respondent
No.6, the Court made the following.
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents.
The grievance of the petitioner is that the Joint Coliector, who is the 3'''* respondent, has initiated proceedings under Section 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands(Prohibition of Transfers) Act, t977 for resumption of the land and authorizing the respondent No.4 to execute the cancellation deed in respect of the land in extent of Ac. 1.50 cents in Sy.No.1316-4, Ac.2.11 cents in Sy.No.1333-5 and Ac.1.85 cents in Sy.No.1340/5 of Lebaka village, Nandalur Mandal, Annamayya district under the purported exercise of the powers conferred under section 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 after a long lapse of time, though the name of the petitioner was recorded in the revenue records as early as in the year 2006. Originally the subject land belongs to the ancestors of the petitioner and has been ■ in the possession and enjoyment of the family. Subsequently, after the death of the petitioner's father, the petitioner continued in possession and enjoyment of the said land. Pursuant to the application, the respondent authorities mutated the flame of the petitioner in the revenue records and issued Pattadar Passbooks and 1-B Adangals.
It is further contended that the respondents have now initiated action by issuing notice to a deceased person, namely. Late Meda Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy the husband of the petitioner, which is wholly contrary to the principles of natural Justice, it is also contended that without considering the fact that the petitioner is the original pattadar and that the land in question is neither Government land nor DKT patta land, the initiation of proceedings under Section 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 could not have arisen. Further, the respondents pught not to have issued a direction straightaway to initiate proceedings under Section 26(1) of the Registration Act, 1908.
In reply to the said contentions, the learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that when the illegal occupation of Government land was brought to the notice of the authorities, the Joint Collector is empowered to initiate proceedings under Section 9. Accordingly, the Joint Collector has taken up thQ matter and, after followrng the principles of natural justice by, issuing notices to all concerned, conducting enquiry, hearing the parties, and upon perusal of the record^ passed the impugned notice. It is further submitted that the plea regarding issuance of notice to a deceased person was not initially raised by the petitioner and that it is not clear whether the petitioner participated in the proceedings after receipt of notice. On instructions, it |s also submitted that a vakalat was filed on behalf of the petitioner's husband and an advocate appeared in the proceedings.
^ Considering the aforesaid submissions and upon perusal of the record, it is evident that by the impugned order, the Joint Collector has only directed the parties to initiate^^^dtion under the provisions of the p.O.T. Act and also to Initiate proceedings under Section 26(k) (1) of the Registration Act, 1908.
The learned Government Pleader further submits that even a period of seven(07) days was granted to the parties to initiate action under Section 26(k)(1) and that final report has been called for.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the respondents proceed with cancellation of the deed, it would adversely iaffect the rights of the petitioner and Would also enable the respondents to alienate the property by creating third-party interests.
Considering the submissions made by both sides and upon perusal of the impugned orders, this Court finds that the respondent authorities have granted liberty to the petitioner to proceed in accordance with the directions issued by the 2"^ respondent to initiate proceedings under Section 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977. With regard to the direction issued under clause (c), the operation of the said order is stayed for a period of eight (08) weeks.
The respondents are directed to file their counter affidavit within a period of four (04) weeks.
SD/.SK MD RAFI //TRUE COPY// DEPUTyfeEGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To,
1. The Principal Secretary Revenue Department, State of Andhra Pradesh,Secretariat Buildings, Veiagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District.
2. The District Collector,Annamayya District, Rayachoty.
3. The Joint Collector,Annamayya'District, Rayachoty.
4. The Revenue Divisional Officer,Rajampet Revenue Division Annamayya District.
5. The Tahsildar,NandalurMandal, Annamayya District.
6. The Sub-Registrar,Rajampeta, Annamayya District. (1 to 6 by RPAD)
7. One CC to SRI. V R REDDY KOWURI Advocate [OPUC]
8. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE ,High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]
9. One spare copy 4 HIGH COURT DR, J DATED: 12/12/2025 ORDER WP.No.34748 of 2025 INTERIM STAY I ■ O'"
m n ■a:, ★ mu* i