Dismissed¶41

Thasildhar Cum Land Aqusition Officer v. P Nagabhushana Rao Patnaik (Died)

Andhra Pradesh HC5 Mar 2026CRP/1515/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

C.R.P.No.1515 of 2018, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, Maheswara Rao Kuncheam J, decided 06.03.2026; CRP dismissed as infructuous on recorded submission that subsequent events left no surviving cause; Article 227 of the Constitution of India; Section 151 CPC (IA Nos. 1 and 2 of 2018); impugned order dated 30.9.2016 in E.P.No.130/2010 in LOP.No.23/1985, Senior Civil Judge-cum-Land Acquisition Tribunal, Vizianagaram; Thasildhar cum Land Acquisition Officer Vizianagaram v. legal heirs of P Nagabhushana Rao Patnaik (EA.No.270/2013 dated 24.7.2014); condone delay 592 days; no order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions closed.

What did the court decide?

None. The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed as infructuous with no order as to costs, and pending miscellaneous petitions were closed. ¶41

Thasildhar Cum Land Aqusition Officer Vs P… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None. The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed as infructuous with no order as to costs, and pending miscellaneous petitions were closed.

¶41

Issue for consideration

Whether the cause in the Civil Revision Petition survives for adjudication, or has become infructuous owing to subsequent events in the lis.

¶40

Court's answer

The cause in the Civil Revision Petition does not survive for further adjudication in view of the subsequent events in the lis, and the Civil Revision Petition has become infructuous.

¶40

Ratio / Principle

Recording the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed as infructuous, with no orders as to costs.

¶41

Key takeaways

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Civil Revision Petition stand closed.ratio¶42

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati (Special Original Jurisdiction) — Maheswara Rao Kuncheam, J — C.R.P.No.1515 of 2018 — decided 06.03.2026: The Thasildhar cum Land Acquisition Officer, Vizianagaram (petitioner, represented by the Assistant Government Pleader for Appeals) had sought, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, setting aside of the order dated 30.9.2016 passed in E.P.No.130/2010 in LOP.No.23/1985 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge-cum-Land Acquisition Tribunal at Vizianagaram. The respondents included the deceased first decree holder's legal heirs added per orders in EA.No.270/2013 dated 24.7.2014. IA No.1 of 2018 sought suspension of the execution order and IA No.2 of 2018 sought condonation of delay of 592 days. In court, the Assistant Government Pleader submitted that subsequent events in the lis meant the cause did not survive for further adjudication and the CRP had become infructuous. Recording that submission, the Court dismissed the Civil Revision Petition as infructuous, made no order as to costs, and closed the pending miscellaneous petitions as a sequel. The underlying execution dispute was not adjudicated.

¶1

APHC010073212018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

[3504]

¶5

FRIDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM

¶8

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1515/2018

¶9

Between:

¶10

THASILDHAR CUM LAND AQUSITION OFFICER, VIZIANAGARAM

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

P NAGABHUSHANA RAO PATNAIK DIED, BANGLORE

¶14

SMT MARUPALLI PADMA, W/O VISWESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, HOUSEHOLD DUTIES, DOOR NO. 55-6-26, CENTRAL JAIL, QUARTERS 38, OPP. JUDGE BUNGALOW, RAJAHMUNDRY

¶15

SMT MURAHARIRAO PRAMEELA, W/O SRINIVASA RAO, AGED BOUT 45 YEARS, HOUSEHOLD DUTIES, LIG.33, DOOR NO. 39-20-44/2, KALINGA NAGAR, VUDA QUARTERS, MADHAVADHARA, VISAKHAPATNAM.

¶16

SMT PATNAIKUNI SAILAJA, W/O MURALIDHARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE, FLAT NO. 72/, GAYATHRI HILLS, DOOR NO. 10-C JUBLI HILLS, HYDERABAD.

¶17

¶18

MRK,J C.R.P.NO.1515 OF 2018

¶19

SRI PAKKI VENKATA APPALA SRINIVASA RAO, S/O.LATE NAGABUSHANA RAO PATNAIK, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, SOFTWARE ENGINEER, WHITEFIELD ROAD, BANGALORE (D.HR 2 TO 5 ARE ADDED AS PER ORDERS IN EA.NO.270/2013 DATED 24.7.2014 AS THE LEGAL HEIRS OF THE DECEASED 1ST DECREE HOLDER)

¶20

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶21

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased toMay be pleased to allow the CRP by setting aside the order dated 30.9.2016 passed in E.P.No.130/2010 in LOP.No.23/1985 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge-cum-Land Acquisition Tribunal at Vizianagaram.

¶22

IA NO: 1 OF 2018

¶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 To suspend the operation in EP.No.130/2010 in LOP.No.23/1985 dated.30/09/2016 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge-cum-Land Aqusition Tribunal at Vizianagaram pending disposal of the main CRP and pass

¶24

IA NO: 2 OF 2018

¶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 To condone delay of 592 days in filing the appeal and to pass

¶26

IA NO: 3 OF 2018

¶27

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

¶28

¶29

MRK,J C.R.P.NO.1515 OF 2018

¶30

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶31

1.GP FOR ARBITRATION (AP)

¶32

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶33

1.VENKATESWARA RAO GUDAPATI

¶34

¶35

The Court made the following:

¶36

¶37

MRK,J C.R.P.NO.1515 OF 2018

¶38

ORDER:-

¶39

Mr.Lovaraju Uppalapati, learned Assistant Government

¶40

Pleader for Appeals would submit that in view of the subsequent events taken place in the lis, the cause in the Civil Revision Petition does not survive for further adjudication and the Civil Revision Petition has become infructuous.

¶41

Recording the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no orders as to costs.

¶42

As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Civil Revision Petition shall stand closed.

¶43

_____________________________ MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM,J

¶44

06.03.2026 LSP

Thasildhar Cum Land Aqusition Officer v. P Nagabhushana Rao Patnaik (Died)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thasildhar Cum Land Aqusition Officer v. P Nagabhushana Rao Patnaik (Died)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kosuru Sanyasi, Vs Siruvuru Venkata Ramana Raju

Tirumalla Venkata Ganapathi Vs the State of Ap

Md.Abdul Mansur, Vs B.Raja Shekar

D Shanmugam Raju, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

K Siva Prakash, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

G.Prabhakara Gupta, Vs H.Y.Dora