In a writ petition challenging the inclusion of petitioner's land in a company's allotment list, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh dismissed the petition as infructuous upon counsel's submission.
Writ petition dismissed as infructuous.
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 AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMB TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 7767 OF 2014
Between:
G. Nadipi Sommanna, S/o. G. Ramudu. Aged about 52 Years R/o. Gargeyapuram Village, Kurnool Mandal & District.
...PETITIONER
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 an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, to declare the action of the 3RD respondent in including the Petitioner's patta land in Sy.No.240 admeasuring Ac. 0.94cents, Sy.No. 260 admeasuring Ac.0.54 cents, Sy.No. 265/1 admeasuring Ac. 1.55 cents, Sy.no. 452/2 admeasuring Ac. 0.83 cents. Total extent Ac. 3.86 cents, situated at Gargeyapuram Village, Kurnool Mandal and District, in the list of the
\
lands allotted to the 4th Respondent company, without any authority and without following the due procedure contemplated undertheLaw as being illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 19,21 and 300-A of the Cofistiitutioh of India and consequently direct the Respondent authorities to delete the above said lands from the list of the lands allotted to the 4th Respondent company, and to grantsuchotherrelief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit
Counsel for the Petitioner:SRI. VARUN BYREDDY
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: GP FOR MINES&GEOLOGY Counsel for the Respondent No.4: MOHAMMED ABDUL RASHEED The Court made the following:
wr
APHC010631192014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
[3310]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY ,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 7767/2014
Between:
G. Nadipi Sommanna,
...PETITIONER
AND
The Government Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner:
...RESPONDENT(S)
1.VARUN BYREDDY
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
2.GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY
The Court made the following Order:
Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, Mr.K.PurnaChandra
Sai, learned counsel representing Mr.Varun byreddy,learnedcounselforthe
petitioner submits that, the cause in the present writpetitiondoesnotsurvive, and it has become infructuous.
- Recording the above submission, the Writ Petition is dismissed as Infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs.
2
- As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
//TRUE COPY//
Sd/- U.SRI DEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
SECTION OFFICER
To,
bhb
¥
HIGH COURT
DATED:23/09/2024
ORDER
WP.No.7767 of 2014
X 2 9 MAR 2025 ¥
^ Current beetion ^
DISMISSING THE WP AS INFRUCTUOUS
WITHOUT COSTS
G. Nadipi Sommanna
Government of Andhra Pradesh
K Manmadha Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
