Dismissed¶37

V.V. Peeraiah v. The State Director

Andhra Pradesh HC15 Feb 2026WP/11380/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: dismissal for non-prosecution; default dismissal; no representation; writ petition under Article 226; mandamus; khadi and village industries; interference with peaceful possession of land; Sy.No.59/5; Ac.1.44 cents; Rangasamudram Village; Porumamilla Mandal; Rajampet; YSR Kadapa district; Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution; no order as to costs; pending applications closed; APHC010233272013; Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam; decided 16.02.2026. Use case: procedural dismissal precedent only; no ruling on merits.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution, there being no representation for the petitioner even at the revised call in the afternoon session at 2.37 p.m., after the matter had already been passed over once in the morning session. ¶34

V.V. Peeraiah Vs The State Director — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶37

Issue for consideration

Whether the action of respondents 2 and 3 in interfering with the petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the scheduled property in Sy.No.59/5 admeasuring Ac.1.44 cents in Rangasamudram Village, Porumamilla Mandal, Kadapa District, is arbitrary, illegal and discriminatory, violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution. (Raised by the petition but not adjudicated; the petition was dismissed for non-prosecution.)

¶18

Ratio / Principle

¶34

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Andhra Pradesh High Court at Amaravati (Special Original Jurisdiction), single Bench (Maheswara Rao Kuncheam, J.), Writ Petition No. 11380 of 2013, V.V. Peeraiah v. The State Director, Khadi and Village Industrial Commission and others, decided 16.02.2026. The petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, sought a writ of mandamus declaring arbitrary, illegal and discriminatory (violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21) the action of respondents 2 and 3 — the Manager, A.P. Khadi & Village Industries and Sri Rajeshwari Khadi Grama Udyoga Sangham — in interfering with the petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment of scheduled property in Sy.No.59/5 admeasuring Ac.1.44 cents in Rangasamudram Village, Porumamilla Mandal, Kadapa District, with consequential restraining directions. There being no representation for the petitioner on 04.01.2024, 04.02.2026, nor at either call on the hearing date (despite one pass-over), the Court dismissed the writ petition for non-prosecution, with no order as to costs; all pending applications stood closed. NOTE: dismissal is for default only — no issue on merits was adjudicated, so the decision carries little precedential value on the underlying land-possession grievance.

¶1

APHC010233272013

¶2

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

¶3

[3504]

¶4

MONDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 11380/2013

¶8

Between:

¶9

V.V. PEERAIAH, S/O TIRUPALAIAH,AGED 40 YEARS, SHANKARAVARAM VILLAGE, RANGASAMUDRAM MANDAL, RAJAMPETA, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

THE STATE DIRECTOR, KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION, STATE OFFICE, NEAR GANDHI BHAVAN, M.J. ROAD, NAMPAILY, HYDERABAD

¶13

MANAGER, A.P. KHADI & VILLAGE INDUSTRIES NEAR LAXMI RANGA THEATRE, LAXMI NAGAR CIRCLE, YSR DISTRICT, KADAPA

¶14

SRI RAJESHWARI KHADI GRAMA UDYOGA SANGHAM, PORUMAMILLA MANDAL, RAJAMPET, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY SMT. P.KISTAMMA

¶15

CIRCLE INSPECTOR, PORUMAMILLA P.S. PORUMAMILLA MANDAL, RAJAMPET, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT

¶16

TAHSILDAR PORUMAMILLA MANDAL, RAJAMPET, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT

¶17

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶18

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 toto issue a writ, order or direction in i he nature of Mandamus or otherwise declaring the action of the 2nd and 31a in interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the scheduled property in Sy.No.59/5 admeasuring Ac.1.44 cents situated in Rangasamudram Village, Porumilla Mandal, Kadapa District, as arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory violating Article 14,

¶19

¶20

16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and issue consequential directions, restraining the respondents, particularly the 2nd and 3rd respondent from interfering the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the scheduled property in Sy.No.59/5 admeasuring Ac.1.44 cents situated in Rangasamudram Village, Porumilla Mandal, Kadapa District, and pass

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶22

1.S V INDIRA

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶24

1.RAJENDRA BUSSA

¶25

2.GP FOR HOME

¶26

3.GP FOR REVENUE

¶27

4.SREEKANTH REDDY AMBATI

¶28

5.G KOTINAGULU

¶29

6.M A MUJEEB

¶30

The court made the following ORDER :

¶31

On 04.01.2024 and 04.02.2026, there was no representation for the

¶32

petitioner. Again, on 09.02.2026, at the instance of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the matter is listed today under the caption for dismissal.

¶33

When the matter was called today in the morning session, no one appeared for the petitioner. However, in order to give one more opportunity, the matter was passed over.

¶34