The writ petition challenging a government order granting land to the third respondent was dismissed for default after the petitioner failed to appear despite notices and the matter being listed for dismissal.
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]
APHC010007912013
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: 7242/2013
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 a Writ, order or direction more fully one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent herein in issuing the G.O. Ms. No. 400 Revenue (UC.I) Department dated 28-03-2006 in favour of the 3rd respondent herein without properly verifying her title over the land in S.No. 487 of old Guntur of the petitioner herein as illegal, void and capricious
2
VS,J
W.P.No.7242 of 2013
and consequently to set aside the aforesaid G.O. Ms. No. 400 dated 28-032006 holding that the 314 respondent herein has not got the valid title over the subject land in the proceedings U.L.C. No. 1687/1976B and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
IA NO: 1 OF 2013(WPMP 9076 OF 2013
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 1St respondent herein to consider the Enquiry Report of the 2m respondent herein vide Rc. On U.L.C. No. 1687/76-B dated 05 06-2011 and pass appropriate orders forthwith, pending disposal of the above W.P. No. of 2013 and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
The Court made the following:
3
VS,J W.P.No.7242 of 2013
ORDER:
As it was brought to the notice of this Court that learned counsel for the petitioner is no more, notice was ordered on the petitioner which was returned with an endorsement ‘addressee left without instructions’. As such, the petitioner’s name was printed in the cause list, in spite of which, there was no representation on behalf of petitioner on 08.09.2026. As such, 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
2 provisions across 2 enactments
MADDALI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO
THE GOVT OF AP PRL SECY GOVT 2 OTHERS, SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, HYDERABAD
THE SPECIAL OFFICER COMPETENT AUTHORITY URBAN LAND, CEILING, GUNTUR, GUNTUR CITY & DISTRICT
SMT JASTI THULASAMMA W/O LATE KONDAIAH
V. Sujatha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
