Dismissed¶27

K.Subbamma, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC14 Apr 2026WP/14939/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Infructuous dismissal of Article 226 writ petition; mandamus sought against Tahsildar, Badvel (YSR Kadapa) over alleged obstruction of cultivation of Ac.1.50 in Sy.No.475 A/3, Rajupalem village; cause did not survive; dismissed as infructuous, no costs; interim order vacated; misc. applications closed; Andhra Pradesh High Court, Amaravati; Sumathi Jagadam, J.; W.P. No. 14939/2019; dated 15.04.2026.

What did the court decide?

On the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the cause in the writ petition does not survive for adjudication and has become infructuous, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous, with no order as to costs. ¶27

K.Subbamma, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

APHC010319522019

¶2

[3459]

¶3

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

¶4

WEDNESDAY,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 14939/2019

¶8

Between:

¶9

K.SUBBAMMA,, W/O CHINNASINGARAIAH, AGED 48 YEARS, RIO APPARAJUPETA VILLAGE, BADVEL MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT.,

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

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

¶13

TAHSILDAR, BADVEL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT.

¶14

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶15

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 more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents, particularly Respondent No.2 in interfering and obstructing the agriculture activity on the subject land of Ac.1.50 in Sy.No.475 A/3 of Rajupalem village, Badvel mandal, YSR Kadapa district witlqut issuing any notice and without passing any order as illegal, unjust, arbitrary and high handed, mala fide and consequently direct the Respondent No. 2 not to interfere and obstruct the agriculture activity under taken by the petitioner on the subject land of Ac.1.50 in Sy.No.475 A/3 of Rajupalem Badvel mandal, YSR Kadapa district and pass

¶16

IA NO: 1 OF 2019

¶17

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

¶18

¶19

direct the Respondent No. 2 not to interfere and obstruct the agriculture activity under taken by the petitioner on the subject land of Ac.1.50 in Sy.No.475 A/3 of Rajupalem village, Badvel mandal, YSR Kadapa district, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and pass

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶21

1.L J VEERA REDDY

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶23

1.GP FOR REVENUE (AP)

¶24

¶25

The Court made the following ORDER:

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the cause in the writ petition does not survive for adjudication and the writ petition becomes infructuous.

¶27

In view of the same, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. No order as to costs.

¶28

Interim order granted earlier, if any, shall stand vacated. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶29

__________________________ JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM

Date: 15.04.2026 rsd

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM