Petitioners sought restoration of municipal land allegedly dug up by private respondents at a bus stand site. With no representation for petitioners on the day fixed, the High Court dismissed the writ petition for non-prosecution, with no order as to costs.
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)
MONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI
WRIT PETITION NO: 7583 OF 2013
Between:
...PETITIONERS
AND
Occ: Business,
...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 an appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.1 in not protecting the valuable land belong to and vested in the Municipality in Sy.No. 207/3 of Kasibugga Revenue Village (in an extent of Ac. 1-99 cents), Palasa Mandal, Srikakulam District, having found the same to be illegally occupied and dug up by the respondents No.4 to 8 herein, pursuant to the local inspection and survey by the competent authorities, affecting the petitioners' and others' right to use and access as 'Bus Stand' by directing to restore the dug up land to the bus stand / Municipality and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
I.A. NO: 1 OF 2Q13(WPMP. NO: 9514 OF 2013)
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition,theHighCourtmay be pleased to direct the respondent No.1 to fill upthelanddugupbythe respondents No. 4 to 8 in Sy.No. 207/3 of KasibuggaRevenueVillage, Palasa Mandal, Srikakulam District, forthwith as there is danger tothe lives of public, since the land is situated in BusStandandalsoabutting the Main Road, pending disposal of the writ petitionandpasssuchother order or orders as this Honble Court may deem fit andproper in the circumstances of the ease.
Counsel for the Petitioners; SRI K.VENKAT RAO
Counsel for the Respondent No.2 & 3: GP FOR REVENUE
Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI M.MANOHAR REDDY(SCFOR
MUNCIPALITY AND MUNCIPAL
CORPORATION)
Counsel for the Respondent No.4, 5, 6 & 8: SRI K.MANIKPRABHU
Counsel for the Respondent No.7: NONE
The Court made the following: ORDER
APHC010009122013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
[3332]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY ,THE SIXTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 7583/2013
Between:
Darapu Brundavathi & 3 Others and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND
Commissioner Palasa Kasibugga Municipality 7 ...RESPONDENT(S) Others and Others
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1.KVENKATRAO
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
3.2008/GP FOR REVENUE
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Though the matter is listed under the caption For Dismissal”, today also there is no representation on behalfof the petitioners. It appears that, the petitioners have no interest in
prosecuting the Writ Petition.
Therefore, this writ petition is dismissed for non prosecution.
There shall be no order as to costs.
The miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand SD/- A VENU GOPAL RAO closed. ASSISTANT! “ //TRUE COPY// registrar SECTION OFFICER
To
MBT
I-
HIGH COURT
DATED:06/05/2024
ORDER
WP.No.7583 of 2013
DISMISSING THE W.P FOR NON-PROSECUTION
^6'
^ 19 MAR 2025 t3
m
Currsnt Section ^
WITHOUT COSTS
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Darapu Brundavathi
Gompa Tata Rao
Boddu Venkata Ramana
Navgapu Raja Rao
The Palasa - Kasibugga Municipality, rep. by its Commissioner
The District Collector, Srikakulam
Ravi Cheemalapati
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
