Dismissed¶48

Shaik Ashalatha v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC20 Jul 2026WA/880/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ Appeal dismissed — maintainability of writ petition refusing Article 226 mandamus in private immovable property dispute; unauthorized/illegal construction complaint against unofficial respondents (Shaik Nagul Basha, Shaik Parwin, Adusumilli Sakuntha Mohan alias Nandu) before Commissioner, Auto Nagar Industrial Local Authority (ILA), Vijayawada; Single Judge's dismissal affirmed as free of illegality or infirmity; liberty granted to seek remedies before appropriate forum; no order as to costs; IAs under Section 151 CPC (additional photos, stay, set-aside) closed.

What did the court decide?

No relief; the writ appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs, and miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, were directed to stand closed. ¶48

Shaik Ashalatha Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief; the writ appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs, and miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, were directed to stand closed.

¶48

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition (W.P. No.32060 of 2025), which sought a mandamus directing the Commissioner, Auto Nagar ILA, Vijayawada to inspect the petitioners' schedule property and stop allegedly unauthorized construction, was maintainable, the controversy being a dispute relating to private property between private parties. +1 more

¶42

Court's answer

The controversy raised by the appellants pertains to a private dispute concerning immovable property, for which appropriate remedies are available before the competent forum; the learned Single Judge rightly declined to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which is discretionary and is not to be involved in such kinds of dispute, and as the appellants were also granted liberty to pursue the remedies available under law before the appropriate forum, this Bench finds no reason to interfere.

¶43

Ratio / Principle

Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants and perused the record, this Bench finds no illegality or infirmity in the order dated 06.05.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge warranting interference in the writ appeal.

¶43

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Appeal No.880 of 2026, decided 21.07.2026 by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati (Bench: Ravi Nath Tilhari and Purushottam Kumar Chintalapudi, JJ.; judgment per Ravi Nath Tilhari, J). The appellants — writ petitioners in W.P. No.32060 of 2025 — had sought, under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, a Writ of Mandamus directing the Commissioner, Auto Nagar Industrial Local Authority (ILA), Vijayawada to inspect their schedule property (D.No 55-2-1-15, Ward No.10, Auto Nagar, Vijayawada), verify the legality of ongoing construction, and, if unauthorized, stop the construction and initiate proceedings including demolition. The learned Single Judge, by order dated 06.05.2026, had dismissed the writ petition holding that the dispute was a private dispute relating to private property and the writ petition was not maintainable, while granting liberty to avail remedies before the appropriate forum. The Division Bench held there was no illegality or infirmity in that order warranting interference: the controversy pertains to a private dispute concerning immovable property; jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is discretionary and is not to be involved in such disputes; and liberty to pursue remedies before the appropriate forum had been granted. Writ Appeal dismissed; no order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, stood closed.

¶1

APHC010336132026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

[3601]

¶5

TUESDAY, THE 21^st DAY OF JULY 2026

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

¶8

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PURUSHOTTAM KUMAR CHINTALAPUDI

¶9

WRIT APPEAL NO: 880/2026

¶10

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent to Allow the present Writ Appeal and set aside the order dated 06.05.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.32060 of 2025 Allow W.P. No.32060 of 2025 by issuing a Writ of Mandamus directing Respondent No.3, the Commissioner, Auto Nagar Industrial Local Authority (ILA), Vijayawada to immediately inspect the petition schedule property, D.No 55-2-1-15,Ward no 10, Auto Nagar, Vijayawada, verify the legality of the ongoing construction, and, if found to be unauthorized or without the requisite statutory approvals, forthwith stop the construction and initiate appropriate proceedings in accordance with law, including demolition or removal of the unauthorized structures Pass

¶11

Between:

¶12

SHAIK ASHALATHA, W/O VANKADARA HARI KRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, D.NO 74-24-24/1, DHANEKULAVARI STREET ASHOK NAGAR, VIJAYAWADA - 520 008

¶13

SRI VANKADARA HARI KRISHNA, S/O SUBHASH CHANDRA BOSE, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O D.NO 74-24-24/1, DHANEKULAVARI STREET, ASHOK NAGAR, VIJAYAWADA - 520 008

¶14

...APPELLANT(S)

¶15

AND

¶16

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, AMARAVATI, VELAGAPUDI - 522238

¶17

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, NTR DISTRICT, VIJAYAWADA - 520 002

¶18

THE COMMISSIONER, AUTO NAGAR INDUSTRIAL LOCAL

¶19

¶20

(RNT,J & PKC,J W.A. NO.880 OF 2026)

¶21

AUTHORITY (ILA), VIJAYAWADA - 520 007

¶22

SHAIK NAGUL BASHA, S/O BASHA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/O D.NO 74-7-6/2, DONKA ROAD, PATAMATA, VIJAYAWADA. 520 007

¶23

SHAIK PARWIN, W/O SHAIK NAGUL BASHA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/O D.NO 74-7-6/2, DONKA ROAD, PATAMATA, VIJAYAWADA - 520 007

¶24

ADUSUMILLI SAKUNTHA MOHAN ALIAS NANDU, S/O MOHAN RAM DAS (LATE), AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O D.NO 40-26/1-15, BRINDHAVAN COLONY, VIJAYAWADA. ..

¶25

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶26

IA NO: 1 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 PERMIT the Appellants herein to file Additional Material i.e., Photos and bring the same on record and consider the same while adjudicating the above Writ Appeal or to pass

¶28

IA NO: 2 OF 2026

¶29

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 STAY the Order dt. 06.05.2026 passed in W.P. No. 32060 of 2025 passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge and consequently allow the Writ Petition as prayed for and pass

¶30

IA NO: 3 OF 2026

¶31

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 to set-aside the Order dt. 06.05.2026 passed in W.P. No. 32060 of 2025 passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge and consequently allow the Writ Petition as prayed for and pass

¶32

Counsel for the Appellant(S):

¶33

1.CHENNAPPAGARI SANKARA

¶34

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶35

1.GP FOR REVENUE

¶36

The Court made the following:

¶37

¶38

(RNT,J & PKC,J W.A. NO.880 OF 2026)

¶39

JUDGMENT:- ( per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari )

¶40

This Writ Appeal has been filed by the writ petitioners in W.P.No.32060 of 2025, assailing the order dated 06.05.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge.

¶41

Aggrieved from the alleged action of the unofficial respondents in entering into the petitioners' schedule property unlawfully and raising illegal constructions, the writ petition was filed.

¶42

The learned Single Judge, by order dated 06.05.2026, dismissed the writ petition holding that the dispute was a private dispute relating to private property. The writ petition was not maintainable. However, liberty was granted to the petitioners to avail the remedy available under law before the appropriate forum.

¶43

Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants and upon perusal of the material available on record, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order dated 06.05.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge warranting interference in the appeal. The controversy raised by the appellants pertains to a private dispute concerning immovable property, for which appropriate remedies are available before the competent forum, when the learned Single Judge declined to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which is discretionary and is not to be involved in such kinds of dispute, we find no reason to interfere, when the appellants'

¶44

¶45

(RNT,J & PKC,J W.A. NO.880 OF 2026)

¶46

have also been granted liberty to pursue the remedies available under law

¶47

before the appropriate forum.

¶48

5. The Writ Appeal is dismissed.

¶49

No order as to costs.

¶50