WP/27603/2025 of Vallepu Chinna Ramanna Vs The state of Andhra Pradesh on 7 May 2026

1. VALLEPU CHINNA RAMANNA, S/O VENKATANNA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS

CULTIVATION, RESIDING AT D.NO.4-38-A, AGRAHARAMPALLI, PULIGUNDLAPALLI,

TALUPULA H/O MANDALAM, ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER AND

1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT A.P SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI

2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ANATHAPURAMU DISTRICT, PRESENTLY SRI SATHYA SAI DISTRICT. PUTTAPARTHY.

3. THE JOINT COLLECTOR, ANATHAPURAMU DISTRICT, ANATHAPURAMU

4. THE JOINT COLLECTOR, SRI SATHYA SAI DISTRICT. PUTTAPARTHI.

5. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, . PUTTAPARTHY DIVISION, SRI SATHYA SAI DISTRICT.

6. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUPULA MANDAL,

ANATHAPURAMU DISTRICT, PRESENTLY SRI SATHYA SAI DISTRICT.

7. BURUSU RAMANJANEYULU, S/O VENKATASWAMY, AGED ABOUT

YEARS,

CULTIVATION, RESIDING AT

RAJANALAVANDLAPALLI

8. BURUSU ANJANEYULU, S/O VENKATASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, MM, CULTIVATION,

RESIDING AT RAJANALAVANDLAPALLI, H/O PULIGUNDLAPALLI, TALUPULA MANDALAM, ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT, PRESENTLY SRI SATHYA SAI DISTRICT.

9. BURUSU VEERANJANEYULU, S/O ANJANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, ISRPATE, CULTIVATION,

RESIDING AT RAJANALAVANDLAPALLI, H/O PULIGUNDLAPALLI, TALUPULA MANDALAM, ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT, PRESENTLY SRI SATHYA SAI DISTRICT.

10. BURUSU KRISHNA, S/O ANJANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, MMA, CULTIVATION, RESIDING AT RAJANALAVANDLAPALLI, H/O PULIGUNDLAPALLI, TALUPULA MANDALAM ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT, PRESENTLY SRI SATHYA SAI DISTRICT.

...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 a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the inaction of the 3rd respondent in transferring the Revision Petition in R.C.No.1359 of 2020 from the office of the 3rd respondent i.e,. Joint Collector, Ananthapuramu to the the office of the 4th respondent i.e,. Joint Collector, Sri Sathya Sai District, Puttaparthyi.e., to 4th respondent as illegal, arbitrary, untenable, irrational without jurisdiction and in violation of the principles of natural justice and against to the fundamental rights under Article 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the office of the 3rd respondent i.e,. Joint Collector, Ananthapuramu to transfer Rc.No.1359 of 2020 to the office of the 4th respondent i.e Joint Collector, Sri Sathya Sai District, Puttaparthy due to bi- furcation of erstwhile Anathapuramu District and formation of Sri Sathya Sai District, for adjudication and disposal of Rc. No. 1359 of 2020 as the subject matter of the Revision Petition falls under the jurisdiction of the the office of the 4th respondent i.e,. Joint Collector, Sri Sathya Sai District, Puttaparthi and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025

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 to direct the office of the 3rd respondent i.e,. Joint Collector, Ananthapuramu to transfer Rc.No. 1359 of 2020 to the office of the 4th respondent i.e joint Collector, Sri Sathya Sai District, Puttaparthy, for adjudication and disposal of Rc.No. 1359 of 2020, pending disposal of the Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. S KRISHNA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S):

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

Heard Sri S. Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents.

2. The grievance of the petitioner in the instant writ petition is against the inaction on the part of the respondent No.3 in transferring the Revision Petition, dated 29.02.2020 filed under Section 9 of the Record of Rights Act, 1971 & 1989, to the file of the respondent No.4 – Joint Collector, Sri Sathya Sai District, pursuant to the District reorganization.

3. It is stated that on account of the District reorganization, the jurisdiction over the Subject Revision Petition would lie with the respondent No.4 i.e., the Joint Collector, Sri Sathya District. However, the respondent No.3 did not take any steps for transferring the said file to the file of the respondent No.4. Being aggrieved of the same, the instant Writ Petition is filed.

4. Having regard to the contentions advanced, since the respondent No.3 is no longer holding the jurisdiction of the present case, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition directing the respondent No.3 to transfer the Revision Petition filed by the petitioner under Section 9 of the Andhra Pradesh (Rights in Land) and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 to the respondent No.4 as expeditiously as possible, not later than four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of the order. Upon such receipt of the Revision Petition from the respondent No.3, the respondent No.4 shall pass appropriate orders on the Revision Petition in accordance with law, after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the unofficial respondents herein, within a period of two (02) months thereafter.

5. With the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, all pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.

______________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA Dated: 08-05-2026 MSI

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA

WRIT PETITION NO: 27603/2025

Dated: 08-05-2026 MSI