Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/27453/2026 of VITTHANA NOOKA RAJU Vs THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH on 7 October 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] THURSDAY, THE 8th DAY OF OCTOBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 27453/2026 Between: 1. VITTHANA NOOKA RAJU, S/O. POTHU RAJU, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O. KOTTHA PALEM VILLAGE,
APHC010502582026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE 8th DAY OF OCTOBER 2026
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
WRIT PETITION NO: 27453/2026
Between:
1. VITTHANA NOOKA RAJU, S/O. POTHU RAJU, AGED ABOUT 50
YEARS, R/O. KOTTHA PALEM VILLAGE, MAKAVARIPALEM
MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT531133.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY,
REVENUE
DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI-522237.
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ANAKAPALLI, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT-
531001.
3. THE
REVENUE
DIVISIONAL
OFFICER,
NARSIPATNAM,
ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT-53116.
4. THE
TAHSILDAR,
MAKAVARIPALEM
MANDAL,
ANAKAPALLI
DISTRICT-531133.
...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 toissue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 in considering the representation of the Petitioner dated 18.05.2026 to allot patta to his Hayrick yard in an extent of Ac. 0.022 cents in Sy. No. 70/1 of Tamaram Village fields of Makavaripalem Mandal of Anakapalli District as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently, to direct the Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to act upon the representation of the
Petitioner dated 18.05.2026 and to allot patta to his above-mentioned Hayrick yard 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 direct the Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to consider the Representation of the Petitioner dated 18.05.2026 pending disposal of main Writ Petition Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. KALEEMULLA S
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR REVENUE
The Court made the following:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
2
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
Heard Sri V.Pavan Kumar, learned counsel representing Sri Syed Kaleemulla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Chandra Sekhar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondents.
2. The petitioner’s family-owned Ac.2.00 cents of land in S.No.78 of Tamaram village fields of Makavaripalem Mandal. The respondents 2 to 4 acquired the same for establishment of Anrock company through APIIC on the condition that a plot of Ac.0.05 cents will be provided for a house and Ac.0.02 cents will be provided for hayrick yard. After acquiring the land, an amount of Rs.1,62,216/- was paid by the 3rd respondent vide Ex.P1 cheque. A house site patta was granted for 242 square yards vide Ex.P2. However, the site to an extent of Ac.0.02 cents for hayrick yard was not granted. The petitioner made a representation Ex.P3 to the 2nd respondent; however, the same was not considered.
3. Sri Chandra Sekhar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondents, on instructions, would submit that the petitioner was granted house site patta for an extent of Ac.0.05 cents in S.No.70/1 in R&R Colony, Tamaram village. He would also submit that the petitioner’s family tried to encroach upon Ac.0.02 cents of site, which is adjacent to the house site patta. The petitioner is not eligible for grant of additional patta in respect of Ac.0.02 cents. He would submit that necessary orders will be passed on the representation made by the petitioner.
4. Indeed, directing the authorities to consider the representation is deprecated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Government of India Vs. P.Venkatesh1.
5. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, without touching the merits of the matter, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission with the consent of both the learned counsel, directing the 2nd respondent to consider the representation made by the petitioner dated 18.05.2026 (Ex.P3) and pass appropriate orders, strictly as per the law. No order as to costs.
As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.
___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI PVD
1 (2019) 15 SCC 613 : 2019 SCC OnLine SC 325 : (2019) 8 SCALE 544