Dismissed¶39

Kilari Gopal Rao v. the State of A.P

Andhra Pradesh HC6 Jul 2026WP/7960/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Dismissal for default for want of representation; Article 226 writ of Mandamus; ENDORSEMENT dt. 03-03-2018; Tahsildar Krosuru Mandal; Guntur District; Balemarru Village; TomTom announcement; panchayat notice; Articles 14, 21, 22; Section 151 CPC; IA No. 1 of 2018; Kilari Gopal Rao; Kilari Suresh Kumar; N Durgesh; Kilari Ravi Kumar; Kilari Jahnavi; Lasetty Ravinder; Marella Radha; Shaik Karimulla; GP for Revenue (AP); W.P.No.7960 of 2018; APHC010183672018; High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati; Justice V. Sujatha; 07.07.2026; no order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions closed.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed for default; there is no order as to costs. ¶39

Kilari Gopal Rao Vs the State of A.P — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶39

Issue for consideration

Whether the action of the respondents in issuing the Endorsement dt. 03-03-2018 through respondent No.3 without jurisdiction, publicised via TomTom announcements and notices affixed in the village and panchayat office, was illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional (violative of Articles 14, 21 and 22), warranting its quashing.

¶25

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition is dismissed for default; there is no order as to costs.

¶39

Key takeaways

Ground for dismissal: across hearings on 23.06.2026, 30.06.2026 and 07.07.2026 (including when listed 'for dismissal') there was no representation for the petitioners, who were not evincing any interest in pursuing the matter.ratio¶38
Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Petition stand closed consequentially.ratio¶40

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

W.P.No.7960 of 2018 (High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati; Smt. Justice V. Sujatha; pronounced 07.07.2026): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by Kilari Gopal Rao and Kilari Suresh Kumar, farmers of Balemarru Village, Krosuru Mandal, Guntur District, praying for a writ of Mandamus declaring illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional (violative of Articles 14, 21 and 22) the action of the respondents in issuing the Endorsement dt. 03-03-2018 through respondent No.3 (Tahsildar, Krosuru Mandal) without jurisdiction, including its publicity through TomTom announcements and notices affixed at the panchayat office and prominent village places, with a consequential prayer to quash it; IA No. 1 of 2018 under Section 151 CPC sought interim restraint. The matter came up on 23.06.2026 and 30.06.2026 with no representation for the petitioners' counsel, and on 07.07.2026, though listed under the caption 'for dismissal', there was again no representation. The writ petition was dismissed for default with no order as to costs, and pending Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, were closed. The merits of the challenge to the Endorsement were not examined and no precedent was cited or relied upon. Order marked: Speaking - No; Reportable - No.

¶1

Date of reserved for orders : Date of pronouncement : 07.07.2026 Date of uploading :

¶2

APHC010183672018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

[3333]

¶6

TUESDAY, THE 7^th DAY OF JULY 2026

¶7

PRESENT

¶8

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO: 7960/2018

¶10

Between:

¶11

KILARI GOPAL RAO, S/O. VENKATESWARLU, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS OCC. FARMER, R/O. DOOR.NO. 2-16, BALEMARRU VILLAGE, KROSURU MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶12

KILARI SURESH KUMAR, S/O. KILARI GOPAL RAO, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS OCC. FARMER, R/O. DOOR.NO. 2-16, BALEMARRU VILLAGE, KROSURU MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶13

...PETITIONER(S)

¶14

AND

¶15

THE STATE OF A P, REP BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDING, AMARAVATI, A.P.

¶16

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, GUNTUR DISTRICT. A.P.

¶17

THE TAHSILDAR, KROSURU MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶18

N DURGESH, S/O. NOT KNOWN, AGED MAJOR, OCC. TAHSILDAR, KROSURU, MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶19

KILARI RAVI KUMAR, S/O. NARASIMHA RAO, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCC.GOVT. EMPLOYEE, R/O. H.NO. 11-407/2, 2ND LANE, PANDURANGA NAGAR, AMARAVATHI ROAD, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

VS,J

W.P.No.7960 of 2018

KILARI JAHNAVI, D/O. KILARI RAVIKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT, BEING MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER NATURAL FATHER RESPONDENT NO.4 KILARI RAVI KUMAR R/O. H.NO. 11-407/2, 2ND LANE, PANDURANGA NAGAR, AMARAVATHI ROAD, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶24

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶25

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 pass an order or direction more particularly in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in issuing the impugned Notice titled as ENDORSEMENT dt. 03-03-2018 by the respondent No.3 without any jurisdiction and directing the Panchayath secretary of Balemarru Village, Krosuru Mandal, Guntur District to inform the villagers through TOMTOM and that the village assistant publicized the same in the village through TOMTOM and also affixed the impugned notice in the panchayat office and other prominent places of the village as highly illegal, arbitrary, un constitutional in law and volatile articles 14, 21 and 22 of the constitution of India and consequntly quash Notice titled as ENDORSEMENT dt. 03-03-2018 issued by the respondent No.3 and to pass may think deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. and to pass

¶26

IA NO: 1 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 respondets not to proceed further in persuance of the Notice titled as ENDORSEMENT dt. 03-03-2018 issued by the respondent No.3 forth with pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass

¶28

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶29

1.LASETTY RAVINDER

¶30

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶31

1.GP FOR REVENUE (AP)

¶32

2.MARELLA RADHA

¶33

3.SHAIK KARIMULLA

¶34

¶35

VS,J W.P.No.7960 of 2018

¶36

The Court made the following: ORDER:

¶37

When the writ petition came up for hearing on 23.06.2026, there was no representation on behalf of counsel for the petitioners, as such, the matter was directed to be posted to 30.06.2026. Even on 30.06.2026, as there was no representation on behalf of the petitioners, the matter was posted to 07.07.2026, under the caption ‘for dismissal’.

¶38

Today, though the matter is listed under the caption ‘for dismissal’, there was no representation on behalf of counsel for the petitioners. It seems that the petitioners are not evincing any interest in pursuing the matter.

¶39

In view of the same, this writ petition is dismissed for default. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶40

Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Petition shall stand closed.

¶41

_____________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA 07.07.2026 Gss

¶42

Whether the order is : Speaking No Reportable No

Kilari Gopal Rao v. the State of A.P

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kilari Gopal Rao v. the State of A.P

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Shaik Madeena Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Tagiri Ramakrishna Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Narsipalli Ravi Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh