Allowed¶49

Miyala Sujanamma v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC5 Jan 2026WA/17/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Res judicata – no bar where earlier writ petition not decided on merits and liberty granted – D-Form patta (1971) cancellation – land resumption by Mandal Revenue Officer, Visakhapatnam (06.02.2003) – delivery of land to VUDA (receipt dated 15.02.2006) – Sy.No.154/3, Kommadi Village, Visakhapatnam (Rural) – VMRDA/VUDA – writ appeal under clause 15 Letters Patent allowed, single Judge's order dated 09.12.2025 in WP No.33700 of 2023 set aside, matter remanded, interim orders revived.

What did the court decide?

Writ Appeal allowed; order of the learned Single Judge dated 09.12.2025 in WP No.33700 of 2023 set aside; matter remanded to the learned Single Judge for appropriate consideration and disposal; interim orders available to the appellants stand revived; no order as to costs; pending applications closed. ¶49

Miyala Sujanamma Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh — Andhra Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

APHC010004852026

¶2

[3529]

¶3

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

¶4

TUESDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR

¶8

WRIT APPEAL NO: 17/2026

¶9

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set aside the order of the learned single judge dated 09.12.2025 passed in W.P.No.33700 of 2023 and also allow the writ petition by setting aside the proceedings of the 5TH respondent vide Rc.No. 1220/05/A dated 06.02.2006 and PASS

¶10

Between:

¶11

MIYALA SUJANAMMA, W/O.LATE SIMHACHALAM, AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS,

¶12

NETHALA PRAMEELA @ MERCY RUKMINI PRAMEELA NETHALA, W/O.NETHALA PREMANANDAM, AGED 63 YEARS, BOTH 1 AND 2 ABOVE ARE RESIDING AT SY.NO 154/3, BLOCK 1-8, KOMMADI, VISAKHAPATNAM RURAL MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM,A.P. - 530 045

¶13

...APPELLANT(S)

¶14

AND

¶15

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, A.P.SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 522

¶16

¶17

238

¶18

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT, HAVING OFFICE AT DISTRICT COLLECTORATE, MAHARANIPETA, VISAKHAPATNAM.

¶19

THE JOINT COLLECTOR, VISAKHAPATNAM HAVING OFFICE AT DISTRICT COLLECTORATE, MAHARANIPETA, VISAKHAPATNAM.

¶20

THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, BHEEMUNIPATNAM REVENUE DIVISION, BHEEMUNIPATNAM

¶21

THE TAHSILDAR, VISAKHAPATNAM (RURAL) MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM.

¶22

THE VISAKHAPATNAM METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VMRDA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN / COMMISSIONER, HAVING OFFICE AT 8TH FLOOR, VUDA COMPLEX, SIRIPURAM, VISAKHAPATNAM - 530 003

¶23

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶24

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶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 pleased to grant leave to the appellants to file additional material papers in the writ appeal filed against the order dated 12.12.2025 passed in W.P.No.33700 of 2023 and pass

¶26

IA NO: 2 OF 2026

¶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 pleased to direct the respondents not to interfere with petitioners’ possession and

¶28

¶29

enjoyment over the land to an extent of Ac 4.00 cents in Sy.No. 154/3 of Kommadi Village, Visakhapatnam (rural) Mandal, Visakhapatnam District and pass

¶30

Counsel for the Appellant(S):

¶31

1.MEKA RAHUL CHOWDARY

¶32

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶33

1.GP FOR REVENUE

¶34

2.SOMISETTY GANESH BABU SC For VUDA and MUDA

¶35

¶36

The Court made the following order:

¶37

The 1^st appellant claims possession over an extent of Ac.5.00 cents of land situated in Sy.No.154/3 of Kommadi Village, Visakhapatnam (rural Mandal), Visakhapatnam District. The claim of the 1^st appellant is that the said land had been assigned to her by way of D-Form patta in the year 1971. The 1^st appellant approached this Court by way of WP No.20563 of 2006, contending that M/s.Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority (VUDA), was trying to interfere with her possession over the said land. This writ petition came to be disposed of, by a learned Single Judge, of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, by order, dated 28.09.2006. The learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition with a direction, to the respondents therein, not to forcibly evict the 1^st appellant, unless and until they follow due process of law.

¶38

After some period, the 1^st appellant again approached this Court by way of WP No.13664 of 2015. In this writ petition, the 1^st appellant challenged the cancellation of her D-Form patta and the consequent action of the Tahsildar, handing over the said land to VUDA. The contention of the 1^st appellant, in that writ petition,

¶39

¶40

was that the orders of cancellation were done without notice to her and that the same suffer from violation of principles of natural justice.

¶41

When the matter came up for hearing, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue, produced instructions of the Tahsildar as well as the proceedings showing that the land had been resumed by Mandal Revenue Officer, Visakhapatnam, on 06.02.2003 and a delivery receipt, dated 15.02.2006, showing that the land was handed over to VUDA was also placed before the learned Single Judge. On the basis of these submissions, a learned single judge of this Court disposed of WP No.13664 of 2015, by order dated 15.11.2022. In this judgment, the learned Single Judge, after recording the submissions of the learned Government Pleader, mentioned above, had closed the writ petition, granting liberty to the 1^st appellant to challenge the earlier orders, if any. Thereafter, the 1^st appellant as well as her daughter had moved WP No.33700 of 2023, challenging the resumption proceedings which had been placed before the Court in WP No.13664 of 2015.

¶42

¶43

A learned Single Judge, heard the matter, after completion of pleadings. The learned Single Judge, after recording the submissions made on both sides, had dismissed the writ petition on the ground of Res Judicata . The learned Single Judge took the view that the writ petition is barred by Res Judicata as both the writ petitions challenged the same proceedings and the same is impermissible.

¶44

Aggrieved by this order, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellants.

¶45

A perusal of the judgment of the learned Single Judge in WP No.13664 of 2015 would show that the said judgment was not on merits. Further, the learned Single Judge, while disposing of the writ petition, had given liberty to the 1^st appellant to challenge the orders which had been placed before the learned Single Judge in the said writ petition. These orders were the orders of resumption.

¶46

It is settled law that the question of Res Judicata would arise when an issue is decided on merits and the same issue is sought to be raised again by the same parties, in subsequent proceedings. In the present case, there is no decision on merits

¶47

¶48

and as such the principle of Res Judicata would not be applicable. Further, the present writ petition would also be maintainable, in view of the specific leave granted by the learned Single Judge in WP No.13664 of 2015.

¶49

For these reasons, this Writ Appeal is Allowed, setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge dated 09.12.2025, in WP No.33700 of 2023, and the matter is remanded back to the learned Single Judge for appropriate consideration and disposal.

¶50