Dismissed

R. Aruna v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC14 Sept 2026WP/23810/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to stop the Tahsildar from dispossessing her from agricultural land she claimed to have purchased in 1995. The court noted that the land had been resumed by the government via an order dated 07.11.2008. Since the land was already resumed, the petitioner's prayer was misconceived, and the writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs. All pending miscellaneous applications were closed.

What the court decided

AI extract

R. Aruna Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

APHC010431552026

¶2

[3331]

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

TUESDAY, THE 15^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 23810/2026

¶9

Between:

¶10

R. ARUNA, W/O V.RAMESH, AGE ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, R/O D.NO.19-110, J.P.ROAD, KUPPAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT - 517425

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, , REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI - 522503.

¶14

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT AT CHITTOOR517001.

¶15

THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KUPPAM REVENUE DIVISION, KUPPAM, CHITTOOR DISTRICT - 517425.

¶16

THE TAHSILDAR, KUPPAM MANDAL, KUPPAM, CHITTOOR DISTRICT - 517425

¶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 toissue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in trying to dispossess the petitioner from the agricultural land in an extent of Ac.0-74 in Sy.No.12/1B, situated at Palarlapalle Village, Kuppam Mandal, Chittoor District, as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law and violation of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents not to dispossess

¶19

Page 2 of 3

¶20

the petitioner from the land to an extent of Ac.0-74 in Sy.No.12/1B, situated at Palarlapalle Village, Kuppam Mandal, Chittoor District

¶21

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶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 direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the land in an extent of Ac.0-74 in Sy.No.12/1B, situated at Palarlapalle Village, Kuppam Mandal, Chittoor District, pending disposal of the above writ petition

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶24

1.K V L NARASIMHA RAO

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶26

1.GP FOR REVENUE

¶27

The Court made the following:

¶28

ORDER

¶29

The above writ petition was filed to declare the action of the respondents, particularly the 4^th respondent, in attempting to dispossess the petitioner from an extent of Ac.0.74 cents of land in S.No.12/1B of Palarlapalle village, Kuppam Mandal, Chittoor District, without following due procedure, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner purchased the aforementioned land under an agreement of sale dated 26.08.1995 and ever since, she has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. He submits that the 4^th respondent, without issuing any notice, is attempting to dispossess the petitioner of the said land.

¶31

When the writ petition was listed on 08.09.2026, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue submitted the resumption order issued by the 4^th respondent-Tahsildar vide Roc.No.B/210/2008, dated 07.11.2008 and a copy of the same was handed over to learned counsel for the petitioner

¶32

Page 3 of 3

¶33

across the bar. At the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the writ petition was adjourned.

¶34

Today, when the matter is taken up for consideration, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is not aware of the resumption order passed by the 4^th respondent.

¶35

However, as seen from the resumption order dated 07.11.2008, the land in S.No.12/1B was resumed by the Government in the year 2008. When the land itself was resumed, the prayer sought in the writ petition is misconceived, and hence, it is liable to be dismissed.

¶36

6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is Dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶37

As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.

¶38

___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶39

PVD

R. Aruna v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

R. Aruna v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases