Dismissed¶39

Shaik Madeena v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC6 Jul 2026WP/5906/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Dismissal of writ petition as abated on death of petitioner and non-response of legal heirs; Article 226 mandamus; Article 300-A property rights; dispossession by Tahsildar Gajuwaka Mandal despite Regularization order RC.NO.823/2016/A dated 11.7.2017; removal of APEPDCL power connection No.11132200GW014290; IA Nos. 1 and 2 of 2018 under Section 151 CPC; Door No.10-7-20/1, Azeemabad, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam; Justice V. Sujatha; no order as to costs; interlocutory applications closed; no merits adjudication.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted; no order as to costs; pending Interlocutory Applications stand closed. ¶39

Shaik Madeena Vs State of Andhra Pradesh — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

[3333]

¶2

Date of reserved for orders :

¶3

Date of pronouncement : 07.07.2026 Date of uploading : 18.07.2026

¶4

APHC010135022018

¶5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶6

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶7

TUESDAY, THE 7^th DAY OF JULY 2026

¶8

PRESENT

¶9

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶10

WRIT PETITION NO: 5906/2018

¶11

Between:

¶12

SHAIK MADEENA, S/O.LAE SHAIK MISKEEN AGED 82 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O. H.O.10-7-20/1, AZEEMABAD, GAJUWAKA, VISAKHAPATNAM-26.

¶13

...PETITIONER

¶14

AND

¶15

STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶16

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.

¶17

THE TAHSILDAR, GAJUWAKA MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM.

¶18

THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER OPERATIONS APEPDCL, GAJUWAKA, VISAKHAPATNAM.

¶19

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶20

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 any writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No. 3 in resorting to dispossess the petitioner from his house premises bearing Door NO.10-7-20/1, Azeemabad, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam covered by Regularization order in RC.NO.823/2016/A dated 11.7.2017 issued by the 3rd

¶21

¶22

VS,J W.P.No.5906 of 2018

¶23

respondent and the action of 4th respondent in removing the service connection to the above premises, as illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice besides violative of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and to consequently direct the respondent NO.3 not to interfere with the petitioners house bearing Door No.10-7-20/1 situated in an extent of 77.74 sq.yards in Sy.No.45/ 12, Azeemabad, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam covered by Regularization order in RC.NO.823/2016/A dated 11.7.2017and to pass

¶24

IA NO: 1 OF 2018

¶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 direct the respondent No.4 to restore the power connection No.11132200GW014290 to the petitioner's premises bearing Door NO.10-720/1, Azeemabad, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam and to pass

¶26

IA NO: 2 OF 2018

¶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 to direct the respondent No.3 not to dispossess the petitioner from his house premises bearing Door NO.10-7-20/1, Azeemabad, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam covered by Regularization order in RC.N0.823/2016/A dated 11.7.2017 issued by the 3rd respondent pending disposal of the writ petition

¶28

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶29

1.V V SATISH

¶30

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶31

1.GP FOR ASSIGNMENT (AP)

¶32

2.GP FOR REVENUE

¶33

3.KOTHAPALLI AISHWARYA CHOWDARY

¶34

The Court made the following:

¶35

¶36

VS,J W.P.No.5906 of 2018

¶37

ORDER:

¶38

Today, when the matter came up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, in view of the fact that the petitioner is no more, he made efforts to contact the legal heirs of the petitioner. However, there was no response from the legal heirs of the petitioner. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed as abated.

¶39

Recording the above submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Writ Petition is dismissed as abated. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶40

As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.

¶41

___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶42

Date: 07.07.2026. KGR

¶43

Whether the order is :

¶44

✓ Speaking Yes/No / Recorded Yes/No ✓ Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No

Shaik Madeena v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaik Madeena v. 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

B.Baburao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt. G. Bhuvaneswari Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

P.R. Mohan Vs The Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer

Tagiri Ramakrishna Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Narsipalli Ravi Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Borra Anasuyamma, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh