Banna Pavan Kumar Vs the State of Andhra… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

Banna Pavan Kumar Vs the State of Andhra… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; petition dismissed as withdrawn, any interim order deemed vacated, no order as to costs, and pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether respondent Nos. 3 and 4 could lawfully entertain, process or register sale deeds or other documents relating to Ac.0.25 cents in Sy.No. 148/6 of Killipalem Village while O.S.No.05 of 2024 remained pending before the I Additional District Judge, Srikakulam (raised by the petitioner's prayer; never adjudicated as the petition was withdrawn).

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn at the request of counsel representing the petitioner's counsel.

Key takeaways

Any interim order, if any, in the writ petition was deemed to have been vacated consequent on the withdrawal.ratio¶37
No order as to costs was made.ratio¶37
As a sequel to dismissal, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.ratio¶38

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Andhra Pradesh High Court at Amaravati (Special Original Jurisdiction), Writ Petition No. 1004/2026, decided 19.01.2026 by Justice B Krishna Mohan. The petitioner, Banna Pavan Kumar, filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a mandamus declaring illegal the action of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in entertaining or proceeding to register any sale deed or document relating to Ac.0.25 cents in Sy.No. 148/6 of Killipalem Village, Srikakulam Mandal and District, during pendency of O.S.No.05 of 2024 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Srikakulam, and seeking a bar on such registrations pending disposal of the suit; IA No. 1 of 2026 under Section 151 CPC sought the corresponding interim direction. Before any adjudication, Sri P. Pavan Chowdary, learned counsel representing the counsel for the petitioner, sought withdrawal of the writ petition. The Court dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn, deemed any interim order vacated, ordered no costs, and closed miscellaneous petitions, if any. The judgment contains no substantive adjudication, no ratio on restraint of registration during the pendency of a civil suit, and cites no precedent; it carries no citable doctrinal weight.

[3233]

APHC010716342025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

MONDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN

WRIT PETITION NO: 1004/2026

Between:

BANNA PAVAN KUMAR, S/O RAMANA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION AND BUSINESS, R/OD.NO. 51-3-113, KUMMARI VEEDHI, BALAGA, SRIKAKULAM TOWN AND DISTRICT - 532001.

...PETITIONER

AND

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. - 522237.

THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR, DISTRICT REGISTRAR OFFICE, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT, SRIKAKULAM - 532001.

THE SUBREGISTRAR, SUB-REGISTRAR OFFICE, SRIKAKULAM, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT - 532001

NEMALAPURI BHARATRAJU, S/O LATE DEENABANDU CHOWDAIY, AGE NOT KNOWN, OCCU NOT KNOWN, R/O D.NO. 6-1/2-52, THEPPALA VEEDHI, SRIKAKULAM TOWN AND DISTRICT - 532001.

NEMALAPURI SUSEELA, W/O NEMALAPURI BHARATRAJU, AGE NOT KNOWN, OCCU NOT KNOWN, R/O D.NO. 6-1/2-52, THEPPALA VEEDHI, SRIKAKULAM TOWN AND DISTRICT - 532001.

NEMALAPURI VIJAYALAKSHMI, D/O NEMALAPURI BHARATRAJ AGE NOT KNOWN, OCCU NOT KNOWN, R/O D.NO. 6-1/2-52, THEPPALA VEEDHI, SRIKAKULAM TOWN AND DISTRICT - 532001.

NEMALAPURI LEELAJYOTHI, D/O NEMALAPURI BHARATRAJ AGE NOT KNOWN, OCCU NOT KNOWN, R/O D.NO. 6-1/2-52, THEPPALA VEEDHI, SRIKAKULAM TOWN AND DISTRICT - 532001.

NEMALAPURI PRIYANKA, D/O NEMALAPURI BHARATRAJ

2

AGE NOT KNOWN, OCCU NOT KNOWN R/O D.NO. 6-1/2-52, THEPPALA VEEDHI, SRIKAKULAM TOWN AND DISTRICT - 532001.

NEMALAPURI PARIMALA, D/O NEMALAPURI BHARATRAJ AGE NOT KNOWN, OCCU NOT KNOWN R/O D.NO. 6-1/2-52, THEPPALA VEEDHI, SRIKAKULAM TOWN AND DISTRICT - 532001.

...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 tomay be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the action of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in entertaining or proceeding to register any sale deed or document relating to the subject property comprising Ac.0.25 cents in Sy.No. 148/6 of Killipalem Village, Srikakulam Mandal and District, during pendency of O.S.No.05 of 2024 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Srikakulam, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law, and consequently direct respondent Nos. 3 and 4 not to register any document relating to the subject property pending disposal of the said civil suit, and pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

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 direct respondent Nos. 3 and 4 not to entertain, process or register any sale deed, conveyance deed, GPA or any document relating to the subject property comprising Ac.0.25 cents in Sy.No. 148/6 of Killipalem Village, Srikakulam Mandal & District, pending disposal of O.S.No.05 of 2024, and pass

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1.P RAMA SHARANA SHARMA

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.GP FOR REVENUE

3

The Court made the following Order:

Sri P.Pavan Chowdary, learned counsel representing the learned

counsel for the petitioner seeks withdrawal of the writ petition.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Interim

order, if any, deemed to have been vacated. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

_________________________ JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN

19.01.2026 NNN