Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Chalasani Sridhar Vs the State of Ap — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

Home
Andhra Pradesh HC
2025
Chalasani Sridhar Vs the State of ApChalasani Sridhar v. the State of Ap

Disposed¶34

Chalasani Sridhar v. the State of Ap

Constitution of India, Articles 226, 14 and 21 – Writ of Mandamus – Grievance redressal – Encroachment on private land

Andhra Pradesh HC21 Mar 2025WP/4890/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single-judge order of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati (Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda, J, 21.03.2025) in Writ Petition No. 4890/2025 (Chalasani Sridhar v. The State of AP and Others): petition under Article 226 alleging inaction of Respondent No.4 on Spandana grievance No.ELR202401085238 dated 08.01.2024 and the consequent endorsement dated 07.02.2024 concerning encroachment on Ac.1.74 cents in R.S.No.266/6, Gopannapalem Village, Dendaluru Mandal, Eluru District; disposed of with a direction to conduct the inquiry and pass a speaking order within four months; Articles 14, 21 and 226 invoked; no costs. Keywords: mandamus; encroachment; Spandana; endorsement; inquiry; speaking order; four months.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to conduct inquiry pursuant to the endorsement dated 07.02.2024 and pass a speaking order in accordance with law within four (4) months from the date of receipt of a copy of the Order; no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand closed.

Why is it important?

The Court directed the respondents to conduct inquiry pursuant to the endorsement dated 07.02.2024 and to pass a speaking order in accordance with law within four (4) months from the date of receipt of a copy of the Order. ¶33

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Respondents directed to conduct inquiry pursuant to the endorsement dated 07.02.2024 and pass a speaking order in accordance with law within four (4) months from the date of receipt of a copy of the Order; no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the inaction of Respondent No.4 in failing to act upon his endorsement dated 07.02.2024 (issued in pursuance of the petitioner's Spandana grievance No.ELR202401085238 dated 08.01.2024) is illegal, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, and whether Respondent No.4 should be directed to conduct an expeditious inquiry and pass a report/speaking order within a stipulated time frame.

Court's answer

The Court directed the respondents to conduct inquiry pursuant to the endorsement dated 07.02.2024 and to pass a speaking order in accordance with law within four (4) months from the date of receipt of a copy of the Order.

Ratio / Principle

With the above direction, the writ petition was disposed of, with no order as to costs.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Constitution of India, Articles 226, 14 and 21 - Writ of Mandamus - Grievance redressal - Encroachment on private land - Petitioner's grandfather was the absolute owner of Ac.1.74 cents in R.S.No.266/6, Gopannapalem Village, Dendaluru Mandal, Eluru District; private individuals allegedly encroached and attempted to construct houses; the petitioner's Spandana grievance No.ELR202401085238 dated 08.01.2024 drew an endorsement dated 07.02.2024 from Respondent No.4 assuring fresh notices and inquiry, but neither inquiry nor report followed. Held: writ petition disposed of directing the respondents to conduct inquiry pursuant to the endorsement dated 07.02.2024 and pass a speaking order in accordance with law within four (4) months from receipt of copy of the Order; no costs; pending miscellaneous application(s) closed.

A

APHC010092472025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3329]

FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 4890/2025

Between:

Chalasani Sridhar

...PETITIONER

AND

The State Of Ap and Others

...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1.ALLA TARUN KUMAR

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.GP FOR REVENUE

The Court made the following:

2

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

WRIT PETITION NO: 4890/2025

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

of the India seeking the following reliefs:-

“to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of Respondent No.4 in failing to act upon his endorsement dated 07.02.2024 issued in pursuance of the petitioner’s Spandana grievance No.ELR202401085238, dated 08.01.2024 as illegal, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct Respondent No.4 to conduct an expeditious inquiry and pass a report/speaking order within a stipulated time frame and pass such other order.”

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner’s grandfather was the absolute owner of the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.1.74 cents in R.S.No.266/6, Gopannapalem Village, Dendaluru Mandal, Eluru District. Some private individuals have encroached and trying to construct houses in the subject land. For which, the petitioner made a complaint dated 08.01.2024 through Spandana. In reply, the 4^th respondent issued an endorsement dated 07.02.2024 stating that fresh notices would be issued and inquiry would be conducted. But till date no inquiry has

3

been conducted and no report has been issued. Hence, the present

Writ Petition.

On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents submits that the respondents will conduct inquiry and pass appropriate orders within a reasonable time.

Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents and on perusal of the material placed on record, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition directing the respondents to conduct inquiry pursuant to the endorsement dated 07.02.2024 and pass a speaking order in accordance with law, within a period of four(4) months from the date of receipt of copy of this Order.

With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel miscellaneous application, pending, if any, shall

also stand closed.

________________________________

VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J

21.03.2025 TPS

4

231

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

WRIT PETITION NO:4890 of 2025

21.03.2025 TPS

Issues for consideration

1 issue framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the inaction of Respondent No.4 in failing to act upon his endorsement dated 07.02.2024 (issued in pursuance of the petitioner's Spandana grievance No.ELR202401085238 dated 08.01.2024) is illegal, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, and whether Respondent No.4 should be directed to conduct an expeditious inquiry and pass a report/speaking order within a stipulated time frame.¶25
The court held
The Court directed the respondents to conduct inquiry pursuant to the endorsement dated 07.02.2024 and to pass a speaking order in accordance with law within four (4) months from the date of receipt of a copy of the Order.ratio¶33

Statutes considered

3 provisions across 1 enactments

AI extract

Constitution of IndiaArticle 226¶23 Article 14¶25 Article 21¶25

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
No judicial order challenged; the petition attacks the inaction of Respondent No.4 in failing to act upon his own endorsement dated 07.02.2024, issued pursuant to the petitioner's Spandana grievance No.ELR202401085238 dated 08.01.2024, seeking a declaration of illegality and a direction to conduct an expeditious inquiry and pass a report/speaking order within a stipulated time.¶25
Prior proceeding
Petitioner's case: his grandfather was the absolute owner of Ac.1.74 cents in R.S.No.266/6, Gopannapalem Village, Dendaluru Mandal, Eluru District, where private individuals encroached and attempted to construct houses.¶28
Prior proceeding
Petitioner lodged a complaint dated 08.01.2024 through Spandana (grievance No.ELR202401085238) regarding the encroachment.¶28
Prior proceeding
In reply, Respondent No.4 issued an endorsement dated 07.02.2024 stating that fresh notices would be issued and an inquiry would be conducted.¶28
Prior proceeding
Despite the endorsement, no inquiry was conducted and no report was issued up to the filing of the writ petition (sentence continues across paragraphs 28 and 30; fragment quoted from paragraph 30).¶30
Prior proceeding
Before this Court, the respondents' Assistant Government Pleader submitted that the respondents will conduct the inquiry and pass appropriate orders within a reasonable time.¶32

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
Chalasani Sridhar¶9
ALLA TARUN KUMAR
respondent
The State Of Ap and Others¶12
GP FOR REVENUE

Coram

AI extract

Venkateswarlu Nimmagaddaauthor¶7

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Andhra Pradesh HC
Decided on: 21 Mar 2025 · March
Registered: 21 Feb 2025
Case no.: WP/4890/2025
CNR: APHC010092472025
Topic: Writ and Judicial Review
Bench: Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda
Disposal: DISPOSED OF NO COSTS
Case type: Writ Petition

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda

D Lakshmi Narayana Chowdary Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh
20 Mar 2025
Durgam Errakka Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh
20 Mar 2025
Palempalli Rama Gangireddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh
20 Mar 2025
Bathula Venkateswarlu Rao Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh
21 Mar 2025
Vakayalapati Sujatha Vijaya Kumari, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh
23 Mar 2025
Batta Suvarnamma, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh
23 Mar 2025

Cite this judgement

Chalasani Sridhar v. the State of Ap, WP/4890/2025 (AP), decided on 21 March 2025.

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Statutes3

Constitution of IndiaArticle 226 · Article 14 · Article 21

View all statutes

Procedural history6

No judicial order challenged; the petition attacks the inaction of Respondent No.4 in failing to act upon his own endorsement dated 07.02.2024, issued pursuant to the petitioner's Spandana grievance No.ELR202401085238 dated 08.01.2024, seeking a declaration of illegality and a direction to conduct an expeditious inquiry and pass a report/speaking order within a stipulated time.
Petitioner's case: his grandfather was the absolute owner of Ac.1.74 cents in R.S.No.266/6, Gopannapalem Village, Dendaluru Mandal, Eluru District, where private individuals encroached and attempted to construct houses.
Petitioner lodged a complaint dated 08.01.2024 through Spandana (grievance No.ELR202401085238) regarding the encroachment.

View full history

Bench / Coram

Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda

Parties & counsel