Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/12042/2025 of S LAKSHMIDEVI Vs THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH on 6 May 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3458] THURSDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 12042 OF 2025 Between: 1. S LAKSHMIDEVI, W/O. S. VIRANARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
APHC010218862025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF MAY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA
WRIT PETITION NO: 12042 OF 2025
Between:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
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.
1. S LAKSHMIDEVI, W/O. S. VIRANARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, D.NO. 9-58, MALAKAPURAM, GOTLURU, SRI SATHYA SAI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.
...PETITIONER AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI.
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SRI SATHYA SAI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.
3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER RDO, DHARMAVARAM, ANDHRA PRADESH.
4. THE THASILDAR, DHARMAVARAM, SRI SATHYA SAI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.
...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. B PARAMESEWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR REVENUE
The Court made the following order:
Heard Sri B.Paramesewara Rao, leanred counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Kotharu Vijayeswari, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondents.
2. The writ petition is filed for the following relief: “to Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction declaring the action of the respondent No. 4 in mutating the land in Survey No.79/8, Ac. 4-90 cents at Malkapuram Village without issuing any notice or providing opportunity of proper hearing, as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to forthwith mutate the name of the petitioner in the revenue records as the lawful possessor and successor of the property and to Pass”
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner’s father- in-law was assigned the subject land in the year 1992. After the demise of the petitioner’s father-in-law, the petitioner’s husband cultivated the said land. It is stated that, after the demise of the petitioner’s husband, the petitioner has been continuing in occupation and possession of the subject property.
4. It is further stated that, during the lifetime of the petitioner’s father-in-law and during the lifetime of the petitioner’s husband, no steps were taken for mutation of their names in the revenue records. Although patta was granted in the year 1992, the name of the petitioner’s father-in-law was never mutated in the revenue records.
5. After the demise of her husband, the petitioner approached the authorities on 17.06.2024 seeking change of classification of the land from “Vanka Poramboke” and issuance of 1-B and Adangal in her name. Since the said representation dated 17.06.2024 was not considered by the Mandal Revenue Officer, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the instant writ petition.
6. Today, when the matter was taken up for consideration, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue placed before this Court a copy of the written remarks received from the 4th respondent, dated 06.05.2026. A perusal of the same would reflect that the representation dated 17.06.2024, said to have been submitted by the petitioner, was not received by the Mandal Revenue Officer. It is stated that the classification of the subject land in the revenue records is shown as “Vanka Poramboke” (water course), and that the land was never mutated in the name of the petitioner’s father-in-law. It is further stated that the petitioner cannot seek substitution of her name in respect of the said land.
7. Without going into the merits of the case, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the Mandal Revenue Officer to consider the copy of the representation dated 17.06.2024 annexed to the writ petition as a fresh representation of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders, within a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
8. It is made clear that the petitioner shall furnish a copy of the representation dated 17.06.2024 to the Mandal Revenue Officer to enable him to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
9. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
______________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA Date: 07.05.2026 BSK
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA
WRIT PETITION NO: 12042 OF 2025
Date: 07.05.2026 BSK