Pulupula Ramu Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh — Andhra Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Pulupula Ramu Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh — Andhra Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ Petition dismissed as withdrawn; liberty granted to the Writ Petitioner to avail all remedies in law, including filing a fresh Writ Petition if so advised; no order as to costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the request of the Writ Petitioner to withdraw the Writ Petition with liberty to file a fresh Writ Petition should be granted. +1 more

Court's answer

The Court found the Writ Petitioner's request to withdraw the Writ Petition with liberty to file a fresh Writ Petition, if so advised, to be reasonable — noting that the Endorsement dated 04.04.2026 was issued only after filing of the Writ Petition on 24.03.2026 — and granted the request.

Ratio / Principle

Since the attempt to survey the land had already been made on 28.03.2026 and the Official Respondents were incapacitated for the reasons stated in the Endorsement, the Court considered that no useful purpose would be served in keeping the Writ Petition pending.

Key takeaways

The Writ Petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the Writ Petitioner to avail all remedies in law, as available to him, with no order as to costs.ratio¶37

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition No. 8525/2026 (survey/boundary fixation of Acs.5.215 cents) dismissed as withdrawn with liberty: the Petitioner's application of 17.11.2025 for a detailed survey led to notices dated 24.03.2026 and a survey attempt on 28.03.2026 at which neither the Petitioner (reported to be residing in Uganda (East Africa)) nor the neighbours attended; the Petitioner's relatives attended but could not show the site's location. Relying on Registered Will Document No.11/1953, which does not name adjacent land holders, the Official Respondents and the City Planner's Endorsement dated 04.04.2026 recorded their inability to fix and mark boundaries. Finding no useful purpose in keeping the petition pending, and noting the Endorsement issued only after filing on 24.03.2026, the Court permitted withdrawal with liberty to avail all remedies in law; no order as to costs.

1

[3328]

APHC010162882026

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

TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD

WRIT PETITION NO: 8525/2026

Between:

PULUPULA RAMU, S/O. LATE PULUPULA VENKATA RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O. 19-2-11, KOTA BAZAR, NARASARAOPET, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 522601

...PETITIONER

AND

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522238.

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522004

THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GUNTUR, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER, GUNTUR - 522003.

THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR, TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING, SITARAM, GUNTUR - 522004

THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, GUNTUR DIVISION, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522004.

THE TAHSILDAR, GUNTUR MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522004.

THE MANDAL SURVEYOR, GUNTUR MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522004.

2

...RESPONDENT(S):

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1.P L NARASIMHA RAO

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.GP FOR REVENUE

2.GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP

The Court made the following:

ORAL ORDER:

Heard Sri S. Sai Roopesh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri P.L. Narasimha Rao, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner and Sri S. Vijay Kumar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri A.S.C. Bose, learned Standing Counsel for Guntur Municipal Corporation.

In compliance with the Order of this Court dated 01.04.2026, the Commissioner of Guntur Municipal Corporation has furnished the Written Instructions along with the Endorsement dated 04.04.2026. Copy of it is supplied to the learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner and the same is taken on record.

The said Written Instructions would indicate that the Petitioner has made an Application for conduct of detailed survey on 17.11.2025 for an extent of Acs.5.215 cents. The Written Instruction would indicate that the Notices were served on 24.03.2026 to the Writ Petitioner and the neighbors as indicated by the Petitioner himself. On the scheduled date, for conduct of the survey i.e., on 28.03.2026, the Petitioner has not attended. The Written Instruction would indicate that the Petitioner is presently residing in Uganda (East Africa) and the neighbors have also not attended for the enquiry. However, it is stated that the relatives of the Petitioner one Sri Pothuraju Venkateswarlu and Smt. P. Sarada have attended the enquiry but even they have not been able to show the location of the site. The Written Instruction would therefore indicate that the Petitioner is obviously is not in possession of

3

the site. Petitioner places reliance on the Registered Will vide Document No.11/1953 and in the said document, the names of the adjacent land holders were also not mentioned. Under these facts, it is stated in the Written Instruction that the Official Respondents herein are unable to help the Petitioner for fixing and marking of boundaries. The Endorsement dated 04.04.2026 issued by the City Planner, Municipal Corporation of Guntur also speaks of the same facts.

On a query made by the Court, learned Counsel for the Petitioner seeks time to place on record the other documents. Since the attempt to survey the land has already been made on 28.03.2026 and the Official Respondents were incapacitated for the reasons mentioned in the Endorsement, no useful purpose would be served in keeping this Writ Petition pending.

At this stage, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner seeks to withdraw this Writ Petition with liberty to file a fresh Writ Petition as and when it is requested by the Writ Petitioner and whenever it is necessary.

It is noticed by this Court that the Endorsement dated 04.04.2026 had been issued only after filing of this Writ Petition on 24.03.2026. Therefore, this Court finds the request of the Writ Petitioner to withdraw this Writ Petition with liberty to file fresh Writ Petition, if so advised, is reasonable. Request is granted.

This Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the Writ Petitioner to avail all remedies in law, as available to him. No order as to costs.

Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order.

______________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J

Dt:07.04.2026

Vns