Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Somu Jagan Mohan Reddy vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 20 November, 2025
Author: D Ramesh
Bench: D Ramesh
[3208 ]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
(SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION) yt
THURSDAY .THE TWENTIETH DAY OF NOVEMBER "
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
A
rPRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH
WRIT PETITION NO: 31552 OF 2025
Between:
Somu Jagan Mohan Reddy, S/o Somu Choreddy, Aged about 54 years,
Occ: Cultivation, R/o.
Door N0.2-13A, PAppayapalli Village
Peddamudium Mandal.YSR Kadapa District.
Petitioner
AND
1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary,
Revenue (Assignment) Department, Secretariat, Amaravathi, Andhra
Pradesh.
2. The District Collector, Kadapa, YSR Kadapa District.
3. The Joint Collector, Kadapa, YSR Kadapa District.
4. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Jammalamadugu Revenue Division
YSR Kadapa District.
5. The Tahsildar, Peddamudium, Peddamudium Mandal, YSR Kadapa
District.
6. Jambugalia Subbarayudu, S/o. Subbanna, Aged about 47 years, R/o
Papayapalle Village, Peddamudiam, YSR Kadapa District.
Respondents
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying that
in the circumstancesstated in the affidavitfiled therewith, the High Court may
be pleased to issue a writ, Order of Direction, particularly one in the nature of
Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 5**^ respondent for issuance of
notice vide Ref. A/441/2025 dated 16.06.2025 as illegal, arbitrary, without
jurisdiction and violative of principle of Natural Justice and violative of Article
14, 21, 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the 5th
Respondent not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of
the petitioner properties, to an extent of Ac. 2-12 cents in Sy. No. 63/1 and an
extent of Ac. 2-36 cents in Sy. No. 63/2 total outcome for extent Ac.4-48 cents
at Papayapalli Revenue Village Peddamudiam mandal, Kadapa District.
lA NO: 1 OF 2025
Petition under Section 151 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 direct the 5^^ Respbndent to refrain from interfering with the
peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners properties to an extent
of Ac. 2-12 cents in Sy. No. 63/1 and an extent of Ac. 2-36 cents in Sy. No!
63/2 total outcome for extent Ac.4-48 cents at Papayapalli Revenue Village
Peddamudiam Mandal, Kadapa District, Pending disposal of WP 31552 of
2025, on the file of the High Court.
(A NO: 2 OF 2025
Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be
pleased suspend the notice vide Ref. A/441/2025 dated 16.06.2025 issued by
the 5*^ Respondent for an extent of Ac. 2-12 cents in Sy. No. 63/1 and an
extent of Ac. 2-36 cents in Sy. No. 63/2 total outcome for extent Ac.4-48 cents
at Papayapalli Revenue Village Peddamudiam Mandal, Kadapa District,
Pending disposal of WP 31552 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 RAMESH N Advocate for the Petitioner, GP FOR REVENUE for the
Respondent Nos.1 to 5 and the Court made the following.
ORDER
Impugning the notice vide Ref.A/441/2025, dated 16.06.2025 issued by the respondent no.5, directing the petitioner not to cultivate the land due to the judgment and decree, dated 07.11.2024, passed in O.S.No.11 of 2019 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Proddatur, the above writ petition has been filed.
Heard Sri N.Ramesh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent nos. 1 to 5.
Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent no.6 filed suit in O.S.No.11 of 2019 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Proddatur, against the petitioner and others seeking perpetual injunction. The defendants remained ex-parte. The said suit was decreed on 07.11.2024. The petitioner and other defendants filed two interlocutory applications, one under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and the other under Order 9 Rule 13 of Code of Civil Procedure. These two applications are pending before the learned Senior Civil Judge; Proddatur. Pending the above applications, the Tahslldar Issued the notice impugned. He would also submit that the Tahsildar has no jurisdiction to issue the notice.
Whether the Tahsildar got jurisdiction to issue the impugned notice requires consideration after comprehensive counter.
Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the notice impugned vide Ref.A/441/2025, dated 16.06.2025, issued by the 4th respondent is hereby suspended.
List after four (04) weeks for filing counter-affidavit.
SD/- M.SRJNIVAS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,
1. The Principal Secretary, Revenue (Assignment) Department, The State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Amaravathi, Andhra Pradesh.[By Special Messenger]
2. The District Collector, Kadapa, YSR Kadapa District.
3. The Joint Collector, Kadapa, YSR Kadapa District.
4. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Jammalamadugu Revenue Division YSR Kadapa District.
5. The Tahsildar, Peddamudium, Peddamudium Mandal, YSR Kadapa District.
6. Jambugalla Subbarayudu, S/o. Subbanna, Aged about 47 years, R/o.
Papayapalle Village, Peddamudiam, YSR Kadapa District. (2 to 6 by RPAD)
7. One CC to SRI. RAMESH N Advocate [OPUC]
8. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE ,High Court Of Andhra Pradesh.
[OUT]
9. One spare copy HIGH COURT DR,J DATED:20/11/2025 LIST AFTER FOUR (04) WEEKS FOR FILING COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT ORDER WP.No.31552 of 2025 SUSPENSION i. '■