K.Papireddy S/O.Late Inna Reddy, v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh Rep. By Its Principal Secretary

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTI CE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR W RI T PETI TI ON No. 2 6 9 2 1 of 2 0 1 7 ORDER:

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Revenue.

2.

With the consent of both the parties, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the admission stage.

3.

The present writ petition came to be filed seeking issuance of writ of mandamus declaring the action of respondent No.3 in not considering the representation made by the petitioners for effecting changes in revenue records in RSR by conducting an enquiry and to mutate their names in their ancestral property, as illegal and arbitrary.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioners questions the inaction of the Tahsildar in responding to the representation made by the petitioners for the above said purpose.

5.

Learned Government Pleader submits that the Tahsildar has no authority to act on the representation and it is only the Collector, who can deal with the issue.

6.

Having regard to the above, I see no grounds to accept the request made by the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is always at liberty to pursue the remedies, if any available, before the appropriate authority.

7.

Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed in the light of this final order. No order as to costs. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ JUSTI CE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR 11.08.2017, vhb