Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 12402 (AP)

Kakarla Ganga Raju v. Mareddy Ratnam,

WA/295/2025 · 2025-04-21

K Manmadha Rao, R Raghunandan Rao

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010146192025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3525] MONDAY ,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT APPEAL NO: 295/2025 Between: Kakarla Ganga Raju ...APPELLANT AND Mareddy Ratnam and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant: 1. P NAGENDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. N ANULA 3. GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS The Court made the following order: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) The 1st respondent herein, had approached this Court by way of W.P.No.5996 of 2025 contending that he is the owner of Ac.7.40 cents of land in various survey numbers of Bhimolu Village of Gopalapuram Mandal, East Godavari District and that the respondents 7 and 8, in the Writ Petition were seeking to alienate the land on the basis of entries in the revenue records though the 1st respondent is the owner of the land. 2. A learned Single Judge of this Court, by an order dated, 10.03.2025, had granted an interim order directing the respondents not to alienate or create third party interest in respect of the said lands. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the 8th respondent in the Writ Petition has moved the present appeal. 4. During the course of hearing, this Court has been informed that a suo moto revision petition has been initiated by the Joint Collector, in relation to the changes made in the revenue records and the same is pending before the Joint Collector, East Godavari District. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant, as a measure of demonstrating his bonafides, has instructed his counsel to undertake that the land in question would not be alienated by the appellant, till the disposal of the revision by the Joint Collector. 6. In the circumstances, nothing further would survive in the present Writ Appeal and it is closed by recording the said statement. 7. Further, the Joint Collector shall dispose of the revision at the earliest and not later than one month from the date of receipt of this order after due notice and opportunity to both sides. 8. Accordingly, this Writ Appeal is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO,J _______________________ DR. K. MANMADHA RAO,J RJS HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO HON’BLE DR JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO WRIT APPEAL NO: 295/2025 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) Dt: 21.04.2025 RJS