Dismissed¶35

Smt Kolli Rani, v. The state of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC14 Jun 2026WP/16344/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Infructuous dismissal; writ petition; Article 226 mandamus; land acquisition; threatened dispossession; due process; fair compensation; Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013; Article 300-A; Article 14; natural justice; Section 151 CPC interim applications; interim orders dated 23.10.2019; Surepalli Village; Musunuru Mandal; Krishna District; State of Andhra Pradesh; GP for Revenue; Justice V. Sujatha; 15.06.2026; no costs; miscellaneous petitions closed.

What did the court decide?

None; writ petition dismissed as infructuous upon counsel's submission that no further cause survives, with no order as to costs, and miscellaneous petitions, if any, closed. ¶35

Smt Kolli Rani, Vs The state of Andhra Pradesh — Land Acquisition | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; writ petition dismissed as infructuous upon counsel's submission that no further cause survives, with no order as to costs, and miscellaneous petitions, if any, closed.

¶35

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents' threatened dispossession of the petitioner from her land (Ac 2.76 cents in RS Nos. 292/5 and 292/4, Surepalli Village, Musunuru Mandal, Krishna District) without due process of law and without payment of fair compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 is illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution. NOTE: the Court did not adjudicate this issue; the petition was dismissed as infructuous.

¶21

Ratio / Principle

The Court recorded the submission of Mr. Sk. Hussain, learned counsel representing Mr. Ch.B.R.P.Sekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner, that no further cause survives in the matter and that the matter has become infructuous.

¶34

Key takeaways

On recording the counsel's submission, the Writ Petition was dismissed as infrunctuous, with no order as to costs.ratio¶35
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in the writ petition shall stand closed.ratio¶36

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Andhra Pradesh High Court at Amaravati (Special Original Jurisdiction), W.P. No. 16344 of 2019, decided 15.06.2026 by Justice V. Sujatha: Smt. Kolli Rani had filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking a mandamus declaring illegal and arbitrary the respondents' threatened dispossession of her land measuring Adm. Ac 2.00 cents in RS No 292/5 and Ac 0.76 cents in RS No 292/4 (total Ac 2.76 cents) in Surepalli Village, Musunuru Mandal, Krishna District, without following due process of law or paying fair compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, alleging violation of natural justice and of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution. At hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no further cause survives and the matter had become infructuous; recording the submission, the Court dismissed the writ petition as infructuous, directed that there be no order as to costs, and closed miscellaneous petitions, if any. The substantive questions raised in the petition were not adjudicated.

¶1

[3333]

¶2

APHC010343782019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 16344/2019

¶8

Between:

¶9

SMT KOLLI RANI,, W/O SRINIVASA RAO, HINDU AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, OCCUCULTIVATION, R/O SUREPALLI VILLAGE, MUSUNURU MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

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

¶13

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KRISHNA DISTRICT, AT MACHILIPATNAM

¶14

THE SUB COLLECTOR, NUZVID, KRISHNA DISTRICT

¶15

THE TAHSILDAR, MUSUNURU MANDAL KRISHNA DISTRICT

¶16

THE GRAM PANCHAYATH, SUREPALLI VILLAGE, REP BY ITS SECRETARY, MUSUNURU MANDAL, KRISHNA.

¶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 topleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in threatening to dispossess the petitioner from her land adm Ac 2.00 cents in RS No 292/5, Ac 0.76 cents in RS No 292/4 i.e., a total extent of

¶19

¶20

VS,J W.P.No.16344 of 2019

¶21

Ac 2.76 cents situated in Surepalli Village Musunuru Mandal Krishna District without following due process of law i.e., without paying fair compensation amount as contemplated as per the provisions of the Right To Fair Compensation And Transparency In Land Acquisition Rehabilitation And Resettlement- Act 2013 as illegal, arbitrary, violation of Principles of Natural Justice and violation of Article 14 and Article 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to dispossess t ae petitioner from her land without following due process of law in the interest of Justice

¶22

IA NO: 1 OF 2019

¶23

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 respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from her land adm Ac 2.00 cents in RS No 292/5, Ac 0.76 cents in RS No 292/4 i.e., a total extent of Ac 2.76 cents situated in Surepalli Village Musunuru Mandal Krishna District without following due process of law in the interest of justice pending disposal of the writ petition

¶24

IA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶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 To vacate the interim orders dated 23.10.2019 passed in WP. No. 16344/2019 and dismiss the writ petition and pass.

¶26

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶27

1.CH B R P SEKHAR

¶28

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶29

1.GP FOR REVENUE (AP)

¶30

The Court made the following:

¶31

¶32

VS,J W.P.No.16344 of 2019

¶33

ORDER:

¶34

Today, when the matter came up for hearing, Mr.Sk.Hussain, learned counsel representing Mr.Ch.B.R.P.Sekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that no further cause survives in this matter and that the matter has become infructuous.

¶35

Recording the above submission, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶36

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this writ petition shall stand closed.

¶37

___________________

¶38

JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶39

Date: 15.06.2026 KGR

Smt Kolli Rani, v. The state of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Kolli Rani, 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Peddi Reddy Eashwara Reddy Vs v. Rama Krishna Irs

Reddy Lakshmana Rao Vs K Vetriselvi

V. Rajeswara Rao Vs Y. Sri Lakshmi, IAS

Kotapati Prabhakar Vs G. Sai Prasad, IAS

Polisetty Surendra Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kcl - Jccg Joint Venture, Vs Sri G Sai Prasad