Writ petition challenging the authorities' decision to take away assigned land and allot house sites to third parties. Dismissed for non-prosecution as petitioners did not appear on multiple listings.
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.
f
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
WRIT PETITION NO: 3851 OF 2024
Between:
Amarvanipalem village, Sabbavaram Mandal Anakapalli District ErstWhile Visakhapatnam District
Agriculture R/o Amarvanipalem village, Sabbavaram Mandal, Anakapalli District ErstWhile Visakhapatnam District
years, Occ Agriculture R/o Amarvanipalem village, Sabbavaram Mandal, Anakapalli District ErstWhile Visakhapatnam District
Agriculture R/o Amarvanipalem village, Sabbavaram Mandal, Anakapalli District ErstWhile Visakhapa
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
...RESPONDENTS
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 impugned action of the respondent authorities in deciding to take away the assigned land in Sy.No. 4/1, 4/2 and 4/3 measuring an extent of Ac. 11.26 cents at Gollalapalem village and Sabbavaram Mandal, Anakapalli District Erstwhile Visakhapatnam District and respondent authorities trying to allot house sites to third parties in the land situated in Sy.No. 4/1, 4/2 and 4/3 measuring an extent of Ac. 11.26 cents at Gollalapalem village and Sabbavaram Mandal, Anakapalli District Erstwhile Visakhapatnam District as illegal arbitrary unconstitutional and being violative of articles 14, 21 and 300A of the constitution of India and in violation of settled principals of law
and consequently direct the respondents not to meddle with the possession and enjoyment of the said property of the petitioners in any respect.
lA NO: 1 OF 2024
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to not to issue any house site pattas to third parties on the land situated in Sy.No. 4/1, 4/2 and 4/3 measuring an extent of Ac.11.26 cents situated at Gollalapalem villageandSabbavaram Mandal, Anakapalli District Erstwhile Visakhapatnam District including dispossession of the petitioners from the said property pending disposal of the Writ Petition and pass such other order or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case in the interest of equity.
Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI. SABBAVARAPU SATISH BABU
Counsel for the Respondent No. 1: GP MUNCIPAL ADMNANDURBAN DEV AP
Counsel for the Respondent No. 2: SRI V SURYA KIRAN KUMAR, SC FOR VMRDA
Counsel for the Respondent No. 3 to 6: GP FOR REVENUE
The Court made the following ORDER:
4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
WRIT PETITION No.3851 of 2024
Petlu Durgalu, S/o. Late Chinnappayya, Hindu, Aged 58 years, Occ; Agriculture, R/o. Amarvanipalem Village, Sabbavaram Mandal, Anakapalli District Erstwhile Visakhapatnam District and twenty two others.
Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District and three others.
...Petitioner
...Respondents
Sri S. Satish Babu Counsel for the petitioners GP for Revenue, GP for Counsel for respondents MAUD and Sri V. Surya Kiran Kumar (Standing Counsel)
ORDER
As there was no representation on behalf of the petitioners on 14.02.2024, the matter was directed to be listedon28.02.2024 in the Motion List. On 28.02.2024 also there was no representation on behalf of learned counsel for thepetitioners, hence, the matter was directed to be listed on 27.03.2024.
Page 2 of 3
When the matter was listed on 27.03.2024, none appeared for the petitioners, hence, the matter was directed to be listed to this day under the caption “for dismissal”.
Even today also there is no representation on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioners. It seems that petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the writ petition.
Therefore, the Writ Petition is dismissed as nonprosecution. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any,shall stand dismissed.
SD/- K.SRINIVASA RAJU //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
To,
SECT ICER
[OPUC]
Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]
[OUT]
PRK
HIGH COURT
DATED:22/04/2024
ORDER
WP.No.3851 of 2024
g 2 3 aUG 202*1 ^
Current Section
DISMISSING THE WP FOR NON PROSECUTION WITHOUT COSTS
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Petlu Durgalu and 22 others
The State of Andhra Pradesh
Visakhapatnam Metropolitan Region Development Authority
Subba Reddy Satti
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
