V Jankamma Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

V Jankamma Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

[3332]

Date of reserved for orders :

Date of pronouncement : 15.07.2026 Date of uploading :

APHC010088452023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

WEDNESDAY, THE 15^th DAY OF JULY 2026

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

WRIT PETITION NO: 4457/2023

Between:

V JANKAMMA, S/O LATE KRISHNA NAIK, AGE ABOUT 75 YEARS, R/O RAMAGIRI YEGUVA THANDA, PAMIDI MANDAL, ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT.

BALU NAIK, S/O NAIK, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O RAMAGIRI YEGUVA THANDA, PAMIDI MANDAL, ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT.

VENKATESH NAIK, S/O RAMUL NAIK, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O RAMAGIRI YEGUVA THANDA, PAMIDI MANDAL, ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER(S)

AND

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

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, , ANANTAPURAM DISTRICT.

THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER GUNTAKAL, ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT.

THE TAHSILDAR, PAMIDI MANDAL, ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT.

R SOMLA NAIK, S/0 MANGE NAIK, AGE MAJOR, R/O RAMAGIRI YEGUVA THANDA, PAMIDI MANDAL, ANANTHAPURAMU

DISTRICT-515775.

R CHANDRA NAIK, S/O MANGE NAIK, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, R/O RAMAGIRI YEGUVA THANDA, PAMIDI MANDAL, ANANTHAPURAM -515775

R RAMA SWAMY NAIK, S/O DESE NAIK, AGE MAJOR, OCC. AGRICULTURIST, RIO RAMAGIRI YEGUVA THANDA, PAMIDI MANDAL, ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT-515775.

R NAGESH NAIK, S/O DESE NAIK, AGE MAJOR, R/O RAMAGIRI YEGUVA THANDA, PAMIDI MANDAL, ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT-515775.

HANUMANTHU NAIK, S/O SINGE NAIK, AGE MAJOR, R/O RAMAGIRI YEGUVA THANDA, PAMIDI MANDAL, ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT-515775.

M LALEMMA, W/ RAMUDU NAIK, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, OCC. AGRICULTURIST, R/O RAMAGIRI YEGUVA THANDA, PAMIDI MANDAL, ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT-515775.

R GOPAL NAIK, S/O CHAKRE NAIK, AGED MAJOR, OCC. AGRICULTURIST, R/O RAMAGIRI YEGUVA THANDA, PAMIDI MANDAL, ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT.

M RAMUDU NAIK, S/O SINGE NAIK, AGE MAJOR, OCC. AGRICULTURIST, R/O RAMAGIRI YEGUVA THANDA, PAMIDI MANDAL, ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT.

...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 tomay be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ order or direction particularly one in the nature Writ of mandmus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in entertaining the appeal by order/notice dt.9.1.2023 and further ordering for survey of the petitioners lands in Sy No 39-A extent Ac.4.31 cents (out of Ac.12.92), Sy No 39-C extent Ac.2.83 cents (out of Ac.8.49) and Sy No 45 extent an extent 8.64 Cents (out of Ac.25.93 cents), without serving any notices on the petitioners and without considering as the subject issue was already decided by the 3rd respondent itself in favour of the petitioners is arbitrary illegal and against to the provisions of ROR Act, 1971 and in violation of article 14 and 300A of the constitution of India and against to the principles

of natural justice and colorable exercise of power and consequently set aside the same and pass such

IA NO: 1 OF 2023

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 may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in the appeal and its order/Notice dt.9.1.2023 pending on the file of the 3rd respondent and further direct the respondents not to conduct any survey in the petitioners lands in Sy No 39-A extent Ac.4.31 cents (out of Ac.12.92), Sy No 39-C extent Ac.2.83 cents (out of Ac.8.49) and Sy No 45 extent an extent 8.64 Cents (out of Ac.25.93 cents) without issuing any notices to the petitioners pending disposal

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1.VELAGANI NARASIMHULU

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.SRINIVASA RAO NARRA

2.GP FOR REVENUE

The Court made the following order:

Learned counsel for the petitioner sought permission of this Court to

withdraw the Writ Petition.

Permission is granted.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn . No costs.

Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.

________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

15.07.2026 BRS