The High Court dismissed the writ petition for default after the petitioner failed to appear on multiple hearing dates, including the final date listed for dismissal. The petition challenged the inclusion of the petitioner's property in a prohibitory list and sought directions for mutation and issuance of pattadar passbooks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[3333]
APHC010361522019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE 15th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
WRIT PETITION NO: 17200/2019
Between:
...PETITIONER
AND
...RESPONDENT(S):
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 writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of mandamus by declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in including the petitioner's property admeasuring Ac. 1.00 cents out of Ac.2.06 cents in Sy No. 37 of Kolivarigudem village, T. Narsapuram Mandal, West Godavari
2
VS,J W.P.No.17200 of 2019
District in prohibitory properties list ignoring the legal position as illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional and direct the respondents to delete the petitioner's property from prohibitory list and also direct tIllh Tahasildar to receive and process the application filed by th applicant for mutation and to issue pattadar passbooks in respect of her land admeasuring Ac. 1.00 cents out of Ac.2.06 cents in Sy No. 37 of Kolivarigudem village, T. Narsapuram Mandal, West Godavari District in the interest of Justice
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
The Court made the following:
3
VS,J W.P.No.17200 of 2019
ORDER:
When the writ petition came up for hearing on 01.09.2026, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner, as such, the matter was posted to 08.09.2026. Even on 08.09.2026, when the matter was called, there was no representation on behalf of counsel for the petitioner, hence, the matter was directed to be posted on 15.09.2026 under the caption ‘for dismissal’.
Today, though the matter is listed under the caption ‘for dismissal’, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner. It seems that the petitioner is not evincing any interest in pursuing the matter.
In view of the same, this writ petition is dismissed for default. There shall be no order as to costs.
Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Petition shall stand closed.
_____________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
15.09.2026 Gss
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition should be dismissed for default due to petitioner's non-appearance.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
DOPPASANI MAMATHA
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT
THE TAHASILDAR, T NARSAPURAM MANDAL
THE SUB REGISTRAR, CHINTALAPUDI
V.SUJATHA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
