Cultivators sought a writ of mandamus challenging a bank's deduction of land acquisition compensation remitted into their agricultural loan accounts. With no representation for the petitioners on multiple dates despite adjournments, the writ petition was dismissed for non-prosecution, with no 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.
APHC010161652011
[3459]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 5752/2011
Between:
2
JS,J W.P.No.5752/2011
DISTRICT.
3
JS,J W.P.No.5752/2011
4
JS,J W.P.No.5752/2011
DISTRICT.
5
JS,J W.P.No.5752/2011
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
...RESPONDENT(S):
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 declaring the action of the 1st respondent in deducting the amounts from the agricultural loan accounts of the petitioners, which was remitted by way of cheques by the Land Acquisition Officer, is illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice consequently directing the 1st respondent to remit back the deducted amounts along with
6
JS,J W.P.No.5752/2011
the interest from the date of deduction of amounts to the date of actual realization.
IA NO: 1 OF 2011(WPMP 7158 OF 2011
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 1st respondent to remit back the principal amounts including deducted amounts which were deducted from the accounts of the petitioners, pending disposal of main Writ Petition.
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
7
JS,J W.P.No.5752/2011
The Court made the following ORDER:
Though the matter was adjourned on 09.09.2025, there was no representation for the petitioners. Hence, the matter was directed to be listed on 25.11.2025. Even on that day there was no representation on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioners. Therefore, the matter was directed to be listed today under the caption “for dismissal”.
Today when the matter is called, there is no representation for the petitioners. It appears that the learned counsel for the petitioners is not interested to prosecute the case.
Therefore, the Writ Petition is dismissed as non-prosecution. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________________________ JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM
Dated: 02.12.2025 KAS
8
JS,J W.P.No.5752/2011
218
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM
WRIT PETITION NO: 5752/2011
Dated: 02.12.2025 KAS
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the bank's deduction from the petitioners' agricultural loan accounts of amounts remitted by cheques by the Land Acquisition Officer was illegal and arbitrary?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
B. Simmanna
The State Bank of India
The Govt of India
The Reserve Bank of India
Sumathi Jagadam
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
