Dismissed¶30

Chukka Venkata Ramana Reddy, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC5 Apr 2026WP/14673/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Infructuous dismissal of writ petition; cause does not survive; counsel submission; writ of mandamus; interference with residential building construction; Sy.No.240 Ratnayammapeta Village Payakaraopeta Mandal Visakhapatnam; Tahsildar and Sub-Inspector of Police; State of Andhra Pradesh Revenue Department; Kumarapuram Gram Panchayat; Articles 14, 19(1)(e), 21 and Article 226 Constitution of India; Section 151 CPC; IA No. 1 of 2019 interim relief closed; no order as to costs; Justice Sumathi Jagadam; dated 06.04.2026.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted; the writ petition was dismissed as infructuous with no order as to costs, and pending miscellaneous applications were directed to stand closed. ¶30

Chukka Venkata Ramana Reddy, Vs The State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

[3459]

¶2

APHC010310182019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

MONDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 14673/2019

¶8

Between:

¶9

CHUKKA VENKATA RAMANA REDDY,, S/O NARAYANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/O RATNAYAMMAPETA VILLAGE, PAYAKARAOPETA MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.

¶10

CHUKKA BHARGAVA,, S/O VENKATA RAMANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O RATNAYAMMAPETA VILLAGE, PAYAKARAOPETA MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT

¶11

...PETITIONER(S)

¶12

AND

¶13

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶14

THE TAHSILDAR, PAYAKARAOPETA MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.

¶15

THE KUMARAPURAM GRAM PANCHAYAT, PAYAKARAOPETA MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶16

THE SUBINSPECTOR OF POLICE, PAYAKARAOPETA, VISAKHAPATNAM 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 an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one

¶19

¶20

in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the highhanded action of the 2 and 4th respondents in interfering with the residential building construction activity undertaken by the petitioners in Sy.No.240 admeasuring to an extent of Ac.0.08 cents each situated at Ratnayammapeta Village, Payakaraopeta Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, without notice, without following the procedure as contemplated under law is illegal, arbitrary and colourable exercise of the power vested with them and also in violation of Articles 14, 19 (1) (e) and 21 of the Constitution of India and pass

¶21

IA NO: 1 OF 2019

¶22

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 direct the 2nd and 4th respondent in not to interfere with the construction activity of the petitioners' undertaken in Sy.No.240 admeasuring to an extent of Ac.0.08 cents each situated at Ratnayammapeta Village, Payakaraopeta Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, except under due process of law pending disposal of the writ petition and pass

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶24

1.V V N NARAYANA RAO

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶26

1.GP FOR REVENUE (AP)

¶27

¶28

The Court made the following ORDER:

¶29

Sri.D.Prasad Kumar, learned counsel representing learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the cause in the writ petition does not survive for adjudication.

¶30

Since the cause in the Writ Petition does not survive for adjudication, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. No order as to costs.

¶31

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶32

__________________________ JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM

Date: 06.04.2026 rsd

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM

¶37

WRIT PETITION NO: 14673/2019

¶38

Date: 06.04.2026 rsd

Chukka Venkata Ramana Reddy, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chukka Venkata Ramana Reddy, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lakshmi Vilas Bank Vs State of Andhra Pradesh and 3 others

Nukala Sriram Vs the State of Ap

Pilla Suryakumari Vs the State of Ap

G v Ramana Reddy Vs the State of Ap

Chennamsetty Murali Krishna, Vs the State of Ap

A1 Mansoor Minority Educational and Welfare Society, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh