Yanamala Venkata Kishore Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

YANAMALA VENKATA KISHORE, S/O. SUBBARAYUDU, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, CULTIVATION, R/O. KOTHUR H/O. VENGAMPALLE VILLAGE AND POST, ANANTHASAGARAM MANDAL, SPSR NELIORE DISTRICT. PIN CODE 524303.

¶10

...PETITIONER AND

¶11

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, PIRICODE 522237.

¶12

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT, PINCODE 524001.

¶13

THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ATMAKUR REVENUE DIVISION, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT, PINCODE 524322.

¶14

THE TAHSILDAR, ANANTHASAGARAM MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT, PINCODE 524302.

¶15

THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, ANANTHASAGARAM POLICE STATION, ANANTHASAGARAM MANDAL, SPSR NELIORE DISTRICT, PINCODE 524302.

¶16

YANAMALA RAJESWARI, W/O. HAZARATH REDDY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, KOTHUR, VENGAMPALLE VILLAGE, INAGALURU, RAVURU, ANANTHASAGARAM MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT, PINCODE 524303.

¶17

YANAMALA VAMSI KRISHNA REDDY, S/O. HAZARATH REDDY, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, KOTHURU, VENGAMPALLE VILLAGE, ANANTHASAGARAM MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT, PINCODE 524303.

¶18

YANAMALA HAZARATH REDDY, S/O. RAMI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, KOTHURU, VENGAMPALLE VILLAGE, ANANTHASAGARAM MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT, PINCODE 524303.

¶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 to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 2 to 4 against the respondents 6 to 8 not to interfere the petitioner land in Sy No. 59, Ac.2-71 cents in Sy. No. 59 to an extent of Ac.1-50 cents in Sy. No. 79 to an extent of Ac. 0.35 cents and total extent Ac. 4-56 cents of Inagaluru Village, Ananthasagaram Mandal, SPSR Nellore District in my favour of the Civil Court in I.A. No. 348 of 2025 in O.S. No. 254 of 2025 on the file of the Hon'ble Junior Civil Judge, Atmakur granted interim direction dated 15-12-2025, despite the representation dated 22-12-2025 made by me, as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, unjust and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, Consequently direct Respondents Nos.2 to 4 to consider my representation dated 22-12-2025 the petitioner land in Sy No. 59, Ac 2-71 cents and in Sy. No. 59 to an extent of Ac 1-50 cents in Sy. No. 79 to an extent of Ac. 0.35 cents and total extent Ac. 4-56 cents of Inagaluru Village, Ananthasagaram Mandal, SPSR Nellore 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 to direct Respondents Nos.2 to 4 to consider my representation dated 22-12-2025 the petitioner land in Sy No. 59, Ac 2-71 cents and in Sy. No. 59 to an extent of Ac 1-50 cents in Sy. No. 79 to an extent of Ac. 0.35 cents and total extent Ac. 4-56 cents of Inagaluru Village, Ananthasagaram Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

¶23

3

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶25

KOPPARTHI SUMATHI

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶27

1.GP FOR REVENUE

¶28

2.SIVAPRASAD REDDY VENATI

¶29

The Court made the following

JS, J

WP No.763/2026

4

ORDER :

This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to consider his representation, dated 22.12.2025, regarding the alleged interference by respondent Nos.6 to 8 in the petitioners property i.e., lands to an extent of Ac.2-71 cents and Ac.1-50 cents in Sy.No.59 and an extent of Ac.0.35 cents in Sy.No.79 i.e., totalling to an extent of Ac.4-56 cents situated in Inagaluru Village of Ananthasagaram Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

¶35

2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the father of the petitioner has purchased the subject property i.e., an extent of Ac.2-71 cents under registered sale deed, dated 19.06.2003, and an extent of Ac.1-50 cents under registered sale deed, dated 06.07.2006, and got an extent of Ac.0-35 cents from his ancestors. Thereafter, the father of the petitioner executed a registered settlement deed on 05.07.2025 in favour of the petitioner and since then the petitioner has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same by raising paddy crops. It is alleged that when the respondent No.8 attempted to interfere with his possession, the petitioner filed O.S. No.254 of 2025 on the file of the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Atmakur, SPSR Nellore District (for short, ‘the trial Court’). In the said Suit, the petitioner has filed I.A. No.348 of 2025, wherein the trial Court on 15.12.2025, has granted ad-interim injunction directing the respondent No.8 herein and his men not to interfere with the petitioner’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property.

JS, J

WP No.763/2026

5

3. The petitioner further contends that, on 16.12.2025, when the respondent Nos.6 to 8 entered into his lands and interfered with the cultivation activities, in violation of the interim order in I.A. No.348 of 2025 in O.S. No.254 of 2025, dated 15.12.2025, the petitioner has lodged a report with the Station House Officer, Ananthasagaram Police Station and made the aforesaid representation on 22.12.2025. As no action has been taken thereon, till date, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition.

¶40

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite an interim injunction in his favour, the un-official respondents continued to interfere with the petitioner’s property and seeks a direction to the official respondents to act on his representation, dated 22.12.2025.

¶41

5. Mr. Siva Prasad Venati, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.6 to 8, submits that the respondent No.8 herein was the defendant in the aforesaid Suit and that since the interim order is already in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner herein may be relegated to the trial Court to pursue his remedies.

¶42

6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue expressed no objection in closing this Writ Petition with such liberty.

¶43

7. Having considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record, this Court finds that the interim order in I.A. No.348 of 2025 in O.S. No.254 of 2025 is in subsistence.

JS, J

WP No.763/2026

6

8. Since the Suit in O.S. No.254 of 2025 is pending before the trial Court and the interim order has been passed by the competent civil Court, this Court is not inclined to enter into the merits of the Writ Petition or the underlying property dispute.

¶48

9. The petitioner is, therefore, directed to file appropriate application in the pending Suit before the trial Court for redressal of his grievance. Upon such filing, the trial Court shall take appropriate steps and pass orders, strictly in accordance with law.

¶49

10. Accordingly, with the above observation, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶50

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

¶51

_________________________ JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM

¶52

Date: 04.05.2026 DSH

Yanamala Venkata Kishore v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yanamala Venkata Kishore v. The 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

A Saraswathi Vs the State of Ap

D.Venkat Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Venumbaka Hari Vs the State of Ap

Gummalla Rajaiah Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

B.Pedda Virupakshi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Laxmi Photo Studio Vs the State of Ap