Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2014 DAILYLAW 1602 (AP)

C V Subba Reddy v. Tirupati Urban Development Authority Rep by its

WP/18459/2014 · 2026-04-09

Gannamaneni Ramakrishna Prasad

body2014

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010392972014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3328] FRIDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 18459/2014 Between: 1. C V SUBBA REDDY, S/O SRI. GANGI REDDY, AGED YEARS, OCC: , R/O FLAT .NO. 202, NITYA ENCLAVE, PLOT NO. 1 1A, SRINAGAR COLONY HYDERABAD-500 973 ...PETITIONER AND 1. TIRUPATI URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REP BY ITS, VICE CHAIRMAN TIRUPATI-517 501 CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 2. THE SUB REGISTRAR, OFFICE OF THE SUB-REGISTRAR RENIGUNTA, CHITTOOR DISTRICT 3. TAHSILDAR, TIRUPATI URBAN MANDAL OFFICE TIRUPATI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT 4. SRI SHAKOMAL CHNAD, S/O LATE.MISARMAL AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS RIO D.NO. 1544, ASARRNOHALLAH CHITRAGURGA. KARNATAKA STATE. 5. SMT K V LAKSHMI, W/O SRI. K.V.VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/O D.NO. 2526. LAKSHMI BAZAR CHITRAGURGA, KARNATAKA 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 2 pleased toto issue a writ or order or direction more particularly in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondent No. 1 in not rectifying the defects in title in respect of the M1G Plot No. 380 in Sy.No. 189/4 and 191/8/ 1 to 6 in an extent of 266.66 Sq.Yds and the MIG Plot No. 381 in Sy.No. 189/4 and 191/8 9A to 9E in an extent of 266.66 Sq.yds situated at Chennaigunta Village in the said lay out namely Seshachalam Hill View Extent Layout or to provide alternative sites in the said lay out is illegal, arbitrary discriminatory and unconstitutional IA NO: 1 OF 2014(WPMP 23142 OF 2014 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 pass an interim order directing the Respondent No.1 rectify defects in title in respect of the MIG Plot No.380 Sy.No.189/4 and 191/8/ 1 to 6 in an extent of 266.66 Sq.Yds and the MIG Plot No. 381 in Sy. No. 189/4 and 191/8 9A to 9E in an extent of 266.66 Sq. Yds situated at Chennaigunta Village in the said lay out namely Seshachalam Hill View Extent Layout Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. CH SIVA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. G RAMACHANDRA REDDY(SC FOR TUDA) 2. GP FOR REVENUE (AP) 3. G UMAPATHI SASTRY 4. Karri kalyan Durga Prasad SC FOR TUDA 3 The Court made the following ORAL ORDER: On 07.04.2026 none appeared for the Writ Petitioner. Having noted the same, this Court had directed the Registry to list this matter today under the caption ‘For dismissal’. Today also, there is no representation on behalf of the Writ Petitioner. 2. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. No order as to costs. 3. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. _________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Dt: 10.04.2026 Mnr 4 118 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 18459 OF 2014 Dt: 10.04.2026 Mnr