Dismissed¶36

P Bhagyamma v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC2 Dec 2025WP/9742/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Non-prosecution dismissal; writ petition under Article 226; House site Ac.0-04 cents; Sy.No.88/13; VHS No.3593/1406; Dandupalem village; Raganipalli Panchayat; Punganur Mandal; Chittoor District; Tahsildar; State of AP; District Collector; P Ravi Kumar; Articles 14, 21 and 300-A; no representation; caption 'for dismissal'; interim orders dated 20-04-2023; Section 151 CPC; IA No.1 of 2023; IA No.2 of 2023; IA No.1 of 2024; no order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions closed; Justice Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao; order dated 03.12.2025.

What did the court decide?

The absence of any representation for the petitioner when the writ petition was listed under the caption 'for dismissal' indicated that the petitioner was not interested in prosecuting the writ petition. ¶35

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶36

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition ought to be dismissed for non-prosecution, the petitioner having made no representation when the matter was listed under the caption 'for dismissal'.

¶35

Ratio / Principle

¶35

Key takeaways

The Writ Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution, and there shall be no order as to costs.ratio¶36
As a sequel to the dismissal, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.ratio¶38

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Andhra Pradesh High Court at Amaravati (Special Original Jurisdiction), Single Bench: Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao, J. — W.P. No.9742 of 2023, order dated 03.12.2025. The petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, filed by P Bhagyamma, sought a Writ of Mandamus declaring illegal the action of the Tahsildar, Punganur Mandal (Respondent No.3), with the alleged collusion of P Ravi Kumar (Respondent No.4), in interfering with the petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment of a house site measuring Ac.0-04 cents in Sy.No.88/13, bearing VHS No.3593/1406, at Dandupalem village, Raganipalli Panchayat, Punganur Mandal, Chittoor District, alleging violation of Article 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India; interim orders had been granted on 20-04-2023, and applications under Section 151 CPC (IA Nos.1 and 2 of 2023 and IA No.1 of 2024) were on file. When the petition was listed under the caption 'for dismissal', there was no representation for the petitioner; the Court held this indicated she was not interested in prosecuting the petition and dismissed the Writ Petition for non-prosecution, with no order as to costs, directing that miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No adjudication on merits and no express dealing with the interim orders.

¶1

[3330]

¶2

APHC010189212023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

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

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 9742 of 2023

¶8

Between:

¶9

P BHAGYAMMA, W/O P. VENKATARAMANA. AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE. R/O DANDUPALEM VILLAGE, RAGANIPALLI PANCHAV AT. PUNGANUR MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

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

¶13

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CHITTOOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

¶14

THE TAHSILDAR, , PUNGANUR MANDAL. CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

¶15

P RAVI KUMAR, S/O NAGULAPPA NAIDU. AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS. R/O DANDUPALEM VILLAGE, RAGANIPALLI PANCHAYAT, PUNGANUR MANDAL, CHITTOOR 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 tobe pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, the Petitioner prays that more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, the declaring the action of the respondent's No.3 with collusion of the respondent No4 in interfering with the petitioner peaceful possession and enjoyment of the house hold occupancy over the house site an extent of Ac0-04 cents in Sy.No.88/13.

¶18

¶19

bearing VHS No.3593/1406. dated 30.03.2007 situated at Dandupalem village, Raganipalli Panchayat, Punganur Mandal, Chittoor District and threatening to dispossess petitioner house as illegal, arbitrary. violation of Principal of Natural Justice and violation of Article 14. 21 and 300 A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent No.3 and 4 not to interfere with petitioner respect of house site an extent of Ac 0-04 cents in Sv .no.88/13. bearing VHS No.3593/1406. dated 30.03.2006 situated at Dandupalem village. Raganipalli Panchayat, Punganur Mandal. Chittoor District peaceful possession and enjoyment over the house site and pass

¶20

IA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶21

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 please to direct the respondents not to dispossess of the petitioner from her peaceful possession and enjoyment of house site an extent of Ac 0¬04 cents in Sy.No.88/13 of Dandupalem village, Raganipalli Panchayat, Punganur Mandal, Chittoor District, pending disposal of the Writ Petition and pass such

¶22

IA NO: 2 OF 2023

¶23

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 pleased to vacate the interim orders dated 20-04-2023 passed in WP.No.9742 of 2023, and also dismiss the writ petition and pass

¶24

IA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶25

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 may be pleased to vacate the interim orders granted by this Hon'ble Court on 20/04/2023, inW.P. No.9742 of 2023, and pass

¶26

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶27

1.K N MOHAN

¶28

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶29

1.GP FOR REVENUE

¶30

2.P S P SURESH KUMAR

¶31

The Court made the following:

¶32

¶33

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.9742 of 2023

¶34

ORDER:-

¶35

Despite the writ petition being listed under the caption ‘for dismissal’, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. Hence, it indicates that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the writ petition.

¶36