Dismissed¶38

Nakka Premalatha v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC20 Jan 2026WP/16290/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition dismissed as withdrawn; withdrawal permitted before adjudication; Article 226 mandamus; Section 5(5) A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971; Rc.No.528/2024/LRDT; Revenue Divisional Officer Visakhapatnam; Tahsildar Pendurthi Mandal; Chinamushidivada Village Sy.No.179/2; Ac.25.95 cents; Nagamalli Nagar Plot Owners Welfare Association; interim order vacated; IA No.1 of 2024 stay of LRDT proceedings; IA No.1 of 2025 restraint on construction; no order as to costs; interlocutory applications closed; Justice B. Krishna Mohan; decided 21.01.2026.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief on the merits; the writ petition was permitted to be withdrawn and dismissed as withdrawn, any interim order deemed vacated, no order as to costs, and pending interlocutory applications stood closed. ¶38

Nakka Premalatha Vs the State of Ap — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶38

Issue for consideration

Whether the action of the 3rd respondent in treating the representation dated 25.4.2024 of the 5th respondent as an appeal under Section 5(5) of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (file Rc.No.528/2024/LRDT) is illegal, contrary to the provisions of the Act, 1971, without jurisdiction and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, and whether the proceedings in Rc.No.528/2024/LRDT should be set aside. (Framed in the prayer; not adjudicated - the petition was withdrawn.)

¶23

Ratio / Principle

Permission is accorded to the petitioners' counsel to withdraw the writ petition.

¶37

Key takeaways

The writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn; any interim order is deemed to have been vacated; there shall be no order as to costs.ratio¶38
As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.ratio¶39

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Andhra Pradesh High Court (Special Original Jurisdiction), Amaravati - W.P.No.16290 of 2024 (Hon'ble Justice B. Krishna Mohan), decided 21.01.2026: Four petitioners sought a writ of mandamus under Article 226 declaring illegal, without jurisdiction and violative of Article 14 the action of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam (3rd respondent) in treating the representation dated 25.4.2024 of the Nagamalli Nagar Plot Owners Welfare Association (5th respondent) as an appeal under Section 5(5) of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (file Rc.No.528/2024/LRDT), and sought setting aside of those proceedings. Interim applications included a stay of the LRDT proceedings (IA No.1 of 2024) and a restraint on construction by the 5th respondent over Ac.25.95 cents in Sy.No.179/2 of Chinamushidivada Village, Pendurthi Mandal (IA No.1 of 2025). Before any adjudication, Sri CH. Satya Dev Naidu, representing the petitioners' counsel on record (V. Eswaraiah Chowdary), sought and obtained permission to withdraw; the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn, any interim order deemed vacated, no costs were awarded, and pending interlocutory applications stood closed. No question of law was decided.

¶1

[3233]

¶2

APHC010321752024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN WRIT PETITION NO: 16290/2024

¶8

Between:

¶9

NAKKA PREMALATHA, W/O LATE JADA SAMUEL VIJAYA KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/O D.NO.C-55, SC COLONY, DUPPADA, VIZIANAGARAM.

¶10

JADA DAVID,, S/O LATE JADA SAMUEL VIJAYA KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/O D.NO.C-55, SC COLONY, DUPPADA, VIZIANAGARAM.

¶11

JADA MARY RANI,, D/O LATE JADA SAMSON VIJAY KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/O D.NO.1-17/12-13, BOBBADIPETA CONTONEMENT, VIZIANAGARAM.

¶12

JADA RANJITH KUMAR,, S/O LATE JADA SAMSON VIJAY KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/O D.NO. 1-17/12-13 BOBBADIPETA CONTONEMENT, VIZIANAGARAM.

¶13

...PETITIONER(S)

¶14

AND

¶15

THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶16

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT AT VISAKHAPATNAM.

¶17

THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, VISAKHAPATNAM.

¶18

THE TAHSILDAR, PENDURTHI MANDAL, PENDURTHI,

¶19

¶20

VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.

¶21

THE NAGAMALLI NAGAR PLOT OWNERS WELFARE ASSOCIATION, SUJATHA NAGAR, CHINNA MUSIDIVADA, PENDURTHI MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM, REP.BY ITS PRESIDENT MALLA SATISH KUMAR.

¶22

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶23

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 topleased to issue an appropriate writ or any other order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 3RD respondent in treating the representation dated 25.4.2024 of the 5TH respondent as an appeal under Section 5(5) of the A.P.Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 vide file in Rc.No.528/2024/LRDT as illegal, contrary to the provisions of the Act, 1971, without jurisdiction and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently set-aside the proceedings in Rc.No.528/2024/LRDT and pass

¶24

IA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶25

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 all further proceedings in Rc.No.528/2024/LRDT pending on the file of the 3RD respondent, pending disposal of the writ petition, and to pass

¶26

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶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 direct the 5th respondent and its members not to make any constructions over the land an extent of Ac.25.95 cents in Sy.No. 179/2 of Chinamushidivada Village, Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, which is the subject matter of the proceedings in File Rc.No.628/2024/LRDT on the file of the 3rd respondent, initiated on the representation of the 5th respondent, pending disposal of the writ petition and pass

¶28

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶29

1.V ESWARAIAH CHOWDARY

¶30

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶31

¶32

1.GP FOR REVENUE

¶33

2.P RAJKUMAR

¶34

¶35

The Court made the following Order:

¶36

Sri CH. Satya Dev Naidu, the learned counsel representing the learned counsel for the petitioners on record seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this Writ Petition.

¶37