WP/30461/2026 of K SANKAR REDDY Vs THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH on 15 October 2026

1. K SANKAR REDDY, S/O. K. KANUKONDA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, CULTIVATION,

R/O. CHINNAMITTAPALLI VILLAGE, NELLEPALLI POST,

G.D. NELLORE MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER AND

1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, AP SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 522 238.

2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT AT CHITTOOR 517 002.

3. THE JOINT COLLECTOR, . CHITTOOR DISTRICT AT CHITTOOR 517 002.

4. THE TAHSILDAR, . GANGADHARA NELLORE (G.D. NELLORE) MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT 517 125.

5. K MADHAVA REDDY, S/O. LATE K. KANUGONDA REDDY, R/ AT NELLEPALLI VILLAGE AND POST, G.D. NELLORE MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT 517 167

...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 to issue any writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned notice/proceedings initiated by the 3rd respondent in ROC.L4/e-541/2026, dt 11-09-2026 and 26-09-2026, declaring same as illegal, arbitrary and a colourable exercise of powers vested with him at the behest of 5th respondent, in violation of Article 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of INDIA, to circumvent the Judgment dt 03-06-2019 in OS No.465 of 2013 on the file of the II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CHITTOOR and consequently set a ide the same 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 stay all further proceedings in pursuance of the notices dt:11-09- 2026 and 26-09-2026 in ROC.L4/e-541/2026 of the 3rd respondent/Joint Collector pending disposal of the Writ Petition Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. DHARANI KUMAR B Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following order:

Heard Sri Dharani Kumar B, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Divya Theja, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, for respondents 1 to 4.

2. Notice in respect of respondent No. 5 is dispensed with since no adverse order affecting his right or interest has been passed.

3. Assailing the notice-Ex.P1 issued by respondent No.3 vide Reference No.L4/e-541/2026, dated 11.09.2026 and 26.09.2026 (Ex.P1) under Board Standing Orders 15(18) and G.O.Ms.No.912, revenue Department, dated 02.08.1985, the above writ petition was filed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, acting upon the report dated 18.05.2026 alleged to have been submitted by the Revenue Divisional Officer, respondent No.3 issued notices vide Ex.P1. He would submit that the petitioner filed O.S.No.465 of 2013 on the file of the learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor, against the purchasers of respondent No.5 seeking perpetual injunction in respect of the subject property. The suit was decreed on 03.06.2019. The petitioner requested respondent No.3 to furnish a copy of the report, on which much reliance was placed, orally. However, the authority did not furnish the report. Learned counsel would submit that respondent No.3 is proceeding with enquiry pursuant to Ex.P1, without giving prior opportunity to the petitioner.

5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader, on instructions, would submit that the notice dated 11.09.2026 was issued calling for the petitioner’s explanation. However, the petitioner, without submitting an explanation, filed the above writ petition. Had the petitioner submitted an explanation, respondent No.3 would have considered the same and passed appropriate orders. Regarding the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner vis- à-vis non-furnishing of report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, learned counsel would submit that if the petitioner makes an application, the authority will consider and pass appropriate orders.

6. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner will submit an explanation and also request the authority to furnish the relevant documents.

7. Given the above submissions and the facts and circumstances of the case, keeping the writ petition pending will not serve any purpose. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage with the consent of learned counsel on either side with the following directions:

a. The petitioner to submit an explanation, by annexing all the documents including the judgment in O.S.No.465 of 2013 within two weeks from today.

b. If the petitioner makes any application to furnish documents, if any, respondent No.3 shall consider the same.

c. Thereafter, the learned respondent No.3 shall provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a reasoned order.

Till a reasoned order is passed, respondents 3 and 4 shall not interfere with an extent of Ac.2-88 cents in Survey No.739/3 (LP No.1707), Nellapalli village, G.D. Nellore Mandal, without following due process of law. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date: 16.10.2026 IKN