In a notable decision delivered on October 13, 2025, the Andhra Pradesh High Court at Amaravati set aside an order of the District Collector, Ongole, who had dismissed a land revision petition for “non-prosecution.” Justice Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao directed the Joint Collector to hear the matter afresh on merits, observing that procedural lapses cannot override substantive justice.
Background
The case, Smt. Kethineni Ramalakshamma & Another vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh, arose from a long-standing dispute over several parcels of agricultural land in Pedacherlopalli village, Prakasam district.
According to the petitioners, land records concerning multiple survey numbers-ranging from 0.58 to 2.57 acres-were wrongly altered, prompting a legal battle under the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977. The Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), Kanigiri, had earlier ruled in favor of restoring the land to the original assignees’ heirs, following which the petitioners filed a revision before the District Collector.
However, the District Collector dismissed the revision in April 2025, citing the petitioners’ absence on two hearing dates. Feeling aggrieved, the women moved the High Court, contending that their absence was not deliberate and that the authority should have decided the case on its merits instead of throwing it out on a technical ground.
Court’s Observations
During the hearing, the State’s counsel did not strongly oppose the plea and fairly submitted that the matter could be sent back for reconsideration. The petitioners’ lawyer, A. Varalakshmi, produced postal tracking reports to prove that notices had been properly served on the respondents, but no one turned up for the hearing.
Justice Rajasekhar Rao took a firm view that revenue authorities cannot summarily dismiss such proceedings for “non-prosecution.” The bench observed, “It is trite law that matters involving rights over property must be decided on merits and not on default of appearance.”
He also noted that the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands Act nowhere empowers an official to dismiss a revision petition for mere absence. The court underlined that the spirit of Article 300-A of the Constitution, which protects the right to property, demands a fair adjudication process.
Decision
Setting aside the Collector’s order dated April 25, 2025, the court remanded the case to the Joint Collector and Additional District Magistrate, Ongole. The officer was directed to conduct a full hearing and decide the matter “in accordance with law.”
The court added a cautionary note: if the petitioners fail to cooperate or take three consecutive adjournments, the revisional authority may then dismiss the case for non-prosecution.
With this direction, the writ petition was disposed of, and all pending interlocutory applications were closed.
The ruling effectively gives the petitioners another chance to argue their claim over the disputed land - a relief many villagers in Prakasam, battling similar revenue record issues, will be watching closely.
Case: Smt. Kethineni Ramalakshamma & Anr. vs The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.
Case Type: Writ Petition (W.P. No. 21999 of 2025)
Petitioners:
- Smt. Kethineni Ramalakshamma, W/o Nageswara Rao
- Smt. Kethineni Rattamma, W/o Kondalu
(Both residents of Pedacherlopalli Village, Prakasam District)
Respondents: The State of Andhra Pradesh (Revenue Department) & Others
Date of Judgment: 13 October 2025