Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/8855/2019 of Uppalapati Estaramma Vs THE STATE OF AP on 31 March 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3459] WEDNESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 8855/2019 Between: 1. UPPALAPATI ESTARAMMA, W/O SHAMSAN, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC
APHC010203842019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM
WRIT PETITION NO: 8855/2019
Between:
1. UPPALAPATI ESTARAMMA, W/O SHAMSAN, AGED ABOUT
45 YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE, S.C. COLONY, TOKAPALLE
VILLAGE,
PEDDA
ARAVEEDU
MANDAL,
PRAKASAM
DISTRICT. AP
2. MANDARI VIJAYAMMA, W/O MANDARI TAKAIAH, AGED
ABOUT
YEARS,
R/O
GOLLAPALLE
VILLAGE,
TRIPURANTAKAM MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.
3. PARISHAPOGU KUMARI, W/O PEDDA YESU, AGED
ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC COOLIE, R/O YEGUVAPALEM
VILLAGE, YERRAGONDAPALEM MANDAL, PRAKASAM
DISTRICT.
4. UPPALAPATI ADILAKSHMAMMA, W/O SESHAIAH, AGED
ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC COOLIE, R/O RAJAMPALLE
VILLAGE,
PEDDA
ARAVEEDU
MANDAL,
PRAKASAM
DISTRICT.
5. UPPALAPATI SHANTAKUMARI, W/O DEVAIAH, AGED
ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCC COOLIE, R/O THOKAPALLE, SC
COLONY,
PEDDA
ARAVEEDU
MANDAL,
PRAKASAM
DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDING, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. O/O
DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT
3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MARKAPURAM, PRAKASAM DISTRICT
4. THE
TAHSILDAR,
PEDDA
ARAVEEDU
MANDAL,
PRAKASAM DISTRICT.
5. YENIBERA DHANAM, S/O YENIBERA CHINNA POLAIAH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC COOLIE, THOKAPALLE
VILLAGE, S.C. COLONY, PEDDA ARAVEEDU MANDAL, PRAKASAM 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 action of the respondents in not acting upon the representation dated 16.10.2018, 04.02.2019 made by the petitioners pertaining to the agriculture land in Sy.No.320-3F to an extent of Ac.5.00 cents situated at Tokapalle Village, Pedda Araveedu Mandal, Prakasam District is bad illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and violation of violation of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to mutate the names of the petitioners in the revenue records and issue Pattadar Pass Book and Title Deed in favour of the petitioners pertaining to the agriculture land in Sy.No.320-3F to an extent of Ac.5.00 cents situated at Tokapalle Village, Pedda Araveedu Mandal, Prakasam District.
IA NO: 1 OF 2019
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 respondents not to enter name of the 5th unofficial respondent pending disposal of the above Writ Petition Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. HARANADHA RAJU KATTA
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. M RAMALINGESWARA REDDY
2. GP FOR REVENUE (AP)
The Court made the following
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.
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioners seeking a direction to the respondent authorities to pass orders on their representations dated 16.10.2018 and 04.02.2019 with a consequential prayer to mutate their names in the revenue records and to issue pattadar passbooks to them.
2. Heard the arguments and perused the record.
3. There is no proof that the aforesaid representations made by the petitioners were served on the respondents. Further, it is noted that the 5th respondent is making efforts to mutate his name in the revenue records.
4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, based on the instructions, dated 26.01.2026, submits that the father of the petitioners’ viz., E. China Venkataiah was originally assigned an extent of Ac.5.00 cents of land in Survey No.320-3f of Thokapalli Village in Peddaraveedu Mandal, Prakasam District, which was classified as Assessed Waste Land in the revenue records. The father of the petitioners along with his brother E. Chinna Polaiah was jointly holding the land.
5. It is further submitted that since the petitioners’ father does not have any male issues, the father of the petitioners executed a will on 10.09.2002 in favour of the 5th respondent, who is none other than the son of E. Chinna Polaiah. The father of the petitioners died on 02.05.2018. After his death, 5th respondent got his name mutated in the revenue records.
6. Thereafter, the 5th respondent sold away the said extent of land to Smt. Konduru Manisha, W/o. Koteswara Rao, who subsequently got the land mutated in her favour. As such the cause in the Writ petition does not survive for consideration. Recording the aforesaid submission, the Writ Petition stands dismissed.
7. However, it is open for the petitioners to approach appropriate forum to work out their remedies. No order as to costs.
Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________________ JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM Date:01.04.2026 DSH