The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking mandamus to allow petitioners to cultivate land allotted by the Revenue Divisional Officer, as the court found the petition infructuous.
Writ petition dismissed without costs; interlocutory applications closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :::: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
honourable dr justice k manmadha RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 2fi7n Qp 2012
Between:
Village. Bellamkonda Mandal. Guntur District.
Village. Bellamkonda Mandal, Guntur District.
... Petitioners
AND
Society Limited, Guntur, Guntur District.
Guntur, Guntur District.
... Respondents (R4 is impleaded as per Court order dated 18.07.2012 in WPMP. No. 24531 of 2012)
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 an order or direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not acting upon the complaints / representations of the petitioners, dated 03.10.2011 and 24.10.2011 as illegal, arbitrary, unjustifiedand in violation of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to allow the petitioners to cultivate their lands as usual which were allotted to them by the 1st respondent vide R.C.No.256B/99/B10/SC, dated 03.06.2003.
I.A. NO: 1 OF 2012(WPMP. NO: 3349 OF 2012)
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 3rd respondent not to obstruct the petitioners from cultivating the lands which were allotted to them by the 1st respondent vide R.C.NO.256B/99/B10/SC, dated 03.06.2003 in the interest of justice.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI G L NAGESWAR RAO
Counsel for Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE
Counsel for Respondents: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS
The Court made the following: Order
APHC010293362012
s ► H
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
[3310]
TUESDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 2670/2012
Between;
Varla Rattamma and Others
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
...RESPONDENT(S) The District Collector / Chairman and Others
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1.G L NAGESWARRAO
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.GP FOR REVENUE
2.GP FOR ENDOWMENTS
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, SmtSaradha,learned behalf of Mr G.L.Nageswara Rao, learned counsel for counsel representing on in the writ petition does not survive and the petitioners submits that the cause it has become infructuous.
the Writ Petition is dismissed 2. Recording the above submission as infructuous. No order as to costs.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stands
closed.
SD/-U.SR1DEV1 assistant registrar //TRUE COPY//
SECTION OFFICER
To
NAP, NF Sec
HIGH COURT
DATED;20/08/2024
ORDER
WP.No.2670 of 2012
5 1 1 MAR 2I)?5 S
Co
. Current oecuon .
DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS.
Varla Rattamma
Varla Latchamma
Vara Kumari
Kommu Jeevaratnam
The District Collector
The Revenue Divisional Officer
K MANMADHA RAO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
