Dismissed¶25

Gudaguntla Dasu v. the Tahsildar

Andhra Pradesh HC22 Dec 2025WP/16521/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Andhra Pradesh High Court at Amaravati; W.P.No. 16521 of 2023; decided 23.12.2025 by Justice Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao; writ of mandamus; Article 226 Constitution of India; Articles 14, 19 and 21; Tahsildar Jaggiahpet Mandal NTR District; threat of false implication; insistence to withdraw contempt proceedings; impugned orders of Tahsildar; personal liberty; due process; petition rendered infructuous by efflux of time; dismissed as infructuous; no order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions closed.

What the court decided

AI extract

Gudaguntla Dasu Vs the Tahsildar — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

¶1

[3330]

¶2

APHC010322062023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No. 16521/2023

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

GUDAGUNTLA DASU, S/o.LATE ABRAHAM, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/o. TIRUMALAGIRI VILLAGE JAGGAIAHPETA MANDAL, NTR DISTRICT.

¶9

GUDAGUNTLA BABU, S/o. LATE ABRAHAM, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/o. TIRUMALAGIRI VILLAGE JAGGAIAHPETA MANDAL, NTR DISTRICT.

¶10

GUDAGUNTLA CHANDRA RAO, S/o. LATE ABRAHAM, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/o. TIRUMALAGIRI VILLAGE JAGGAIAHPETA MANDAL, NTR DISTRICT.

¶11

GUDAGUNTLA RAJU, S/o. LATE ABRAHAM, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/o.TIRUMALAGIRI VILLAGE JAGGAIAHPETA MANDAL, NTR DISTRICT.

¶12

...PETITIONER(S)

¶13

AND

¶14

THE TAHSILDAR, JAGGAIAHPET MANDAL NTR DISTRICT.

¶15

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶16

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶17

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 to declare the action of the Respondent No.1 in threatening the Petitioners to implicate in false case and insisting the Petitioners not to question the impugned orders passed by the 1st Respondent and to withdraw the contempt proceedings as arbitrary, illegal, violation of Article, 14, 19 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondent No.1 not to disturb the personal liberty of the Petitioners without following due process of law by threatening to implicate in the false case in the interest of justice.

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶19

1.P NAGENDRA REDDY

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶21

1.GP FOR REVENUE

¶22

The Court made the following:

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

Sri M. Kranthi Gireesh, learned counsel, represented on behalf of Sri P. Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel on record, and stated that the Writ Petition is rendered infructuous by efflux of time and endorsed the same on the bundle.

¶25

Recording the same, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶26

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall

¶27

stand closed.

¶28

___________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHARA RAO

¶29

Date: 23.12.2025

¶30

Harin