Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Pilla Suryakumari Vs the State of Ap — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

Home
Andhra Pradesh HC
2026
Pilla Suryakumari Vs the State of ApPilla Suryakumari v. the State of Ap

Dismissed¶28

Pilla Suryakumari v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC1 Apr 2026WP/6122/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

W.P.No.6122/2019; High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati (Special Original Jurisdiction); Sumathi Jagadam, J.; decided 02.04.2026. Petitioner: Pilla Suryakumari. Respondents: State of AP (Principal Secretary, Revenue - Land Acquisition Department) and Special Deputy Collector & Competent Authority, Land Acquisition, National Highways Authority of India, Visakhapatnam. Prayer under Article 226 for mandamus to dispose of representation dated 06-06-2018 sent by registered post with ack. due; IA No. 1 of 2019 under Section 151 CPC. Counsel: K Venkatesh / M. Babji (petitioner); GP for Land Acquisition (AP) (respondents). Cause submitted as not surviving; writ petition dismissed as infructuous, no costs, miscellaneous applications closed. No precedent cited. Keywords: land acquisition, NHAI, representation 06-06-2018, infructuous dismissal, Article 226 mandamus.

What did the court decide?

None; the writ petition was dismissed as infructuous with no order as to costs, and pending miscellaneous applications were ordered closed.

Why is it important?

Since the cause in the Writ Petition does not survive for adjudication, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous, with no order as to costs. ¶28

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the writ petition was dismissed as infructuous with no order as to costs, and pending miscellaneous applications were ordered closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the inaction of respondent No. 2 in disposing of the petitioner's representation dated 06-06-2018 was unjust and illegal, and whether the respondents should be directed to consider and dispose of that representation.

Court's answer

Since the cause in the Writ Petition does not survive for adjudication, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous, with no order as to costs.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Dismissal as infructuous: Writ Petition No. 6122/2019 (mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution) by Pilla Suryakumari challenging the inaction of respondent No. 2, the Special Deputy Collector and Competent Authority, Land Acquisition, National Highways Authority of India, Visakhapatnam, in disposing of her representation dated 06-06-2018 (sent under registered post with acknowledgment due); IA No. 1 of 2019 under Section 151 CPC accompanied the petition. Before adjudication, Sri. M. Babji, learned counsel representing the petitioner's counsel, submitted that the cause did not survive; the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati (Sumathi Jagadam, J., order dated 02.04.2026) accordingly dismissed the writ petition as infructuous, ordered no costs, and closed the pending miscellaneous applications.

A

[3459]

APHC010139182019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

THURSDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 6122/2019

Between:

PILLA SURYAKUMARI, , WIFE OF P.V.R.NAIDU, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, D.NO.9-19-46/2, FLAT NO.501, VINAYAGHAR VIJAYALAKSHMI APARTMENT, C.B.M. COMPOUND, VISAKHAPATNAM- 530 003, ANDHRA PRADESH .STATE.

...PETITIONER

AND

THE STATE OF AP, REPTD. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE (LAND ACQUISITION) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI AT AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DIST., ANDHRA PRADESH STATE.

THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY, LAND ACQUISITION, NATIONAL HIGHWAYS ' AUTHORITY OF INDIA, VISAKHAPATNAM, A.NDHRA PRADESH STATE.

...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 an appropriate Writ order or direction, more particularly a writ in the nature of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondent No. 2 in disposing of the representation given by the petitioner herein on 06-06-2018 which was received by the respondents as unjust and illegal and further direct the respondents to consider and dispose of the above representations given

2

JS, J W.P.No.6122/2019

by the petitioner dt. 06-06-2018 in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible and pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2019

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 respondent No.2 to consider and dispose of the representation dt. 06-06-2018 which was sent by the petitioner under registered post with ack. due and pass

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1.K VENKATESH

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION (AP)

3

JS, J W.P.No.6122/2019

The Court made the following ORDER:

Sri.M.Babji, learned counsel representing learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the cause in the writ petition does not survive for adjudication.

Since the cause in the Writ Petition does not survive for adjudication, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. No order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

__________________________ JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM

Date: 02.04.2026

rsd

4

JS, J W.P.No.6122/2019

1

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM

WRIT PETITION NO: 6122/2019

Date: 02.04.2026 rsd

Issues for consideration

1 issue framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the inaction of respondent No. 2 in disposing of the petitioner's representation dated 06-06-2018 was unjust and illegal, and whether the respondents should be directed to consider and dispose of that representation.¶14
The court held
Since the cause in the Writ Petition does not survive for adjudication, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous, with no order as to costs.ratio¶28

Statutes considered

2 provisions across 2 enactments

AI extract

Constitution of IndiaArticle 226¶14
Code of Civil Procedure151¶19

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Prior proceeding
Petitioner gave a representation dated 06-06-2018 to respondent No. 2, which was received by the respondents but not disposed of; the writ petition declared this inaction unjust and illegal.¶14
Prior proceeding
The representation dt. 06-06-2018 had been sent by the petitioner under registered post with acknowledgment due; IA No. 1 of 2019 (under Section 151 CPC) sought a direction to respondent No. 2 to consider and dispose of it.¶19

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
Pilla Suryakumari¶8
K Venkatesh, M. Babji
respondent
THE STATE OF AP, REPTD. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE (LAND ACQUISITION) DEPARTMENT¶11
GP for Land Acquisition (AP)
respondent
THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY, LAND ACQUISITION, NATIONAL HIGHWAYS ' AUTHORITY OF INDIA, VISAKHAPATNAM¶12
GP for Land Acquisition (AP)

Coram

AI extract

Smt Justice Sumathi Jagadamauthor¶6

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Andhra Pradesh HC
Decided on: 1 Apr 2026 · April
Registered: 29 Apr 2019
Case no.: WP/6122/2019
CNR: APHC010139182019
Topic: Writ and Judicial Review
Bench: Sumathi Jagadam
Disposal: DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS
Case type: Writ Petition

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from Sumathi Jagadam

C.Yuvaraj Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh
31 Mar 2026
P Sreenivasulu Vs the State of Ap
31 Mar 2026
A Ramanamma Vs the State of Ap
31 Mar 2026
Thunga Balakrishna @ T Balakrishnaiah, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh
1 Apr 2026
B.Ram Prasad Vs State of Andhra Pradesh
1 Apr 2026
K N Kumari Vs the State of Ap
1 Apr 2026

Cite this judgement

Pilla Suryakumari v. the State of Ap, WP/6122/2019 (AP), decided on 1 April 2026.

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Statutes2

Constitution of IndiaArticle 226
Code of Civil Procedure151

View all statutes

Procedural history2

Petitioner gave a representation dated 06-06-2018 to respondent No. 2, which was received by the respondents but not disposed of; the writ petition declared this inaction unjust and illegal.
The representation dt. 06-06-2018 had been sent by the petitioner under registered post with acknowledgment due; IA No. 1 of 2019 (under Section 151 CPC) sought a direction to respondent No. 2 to consider and dispose of it.

View full history

Bench / Coram

Smt Justice Sumathi Jagadam

Parties & counsel