APHC010153142020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3233] WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN WRIT PETITION NO: 9456/2020 Between: 1. I.PRASANNA, W/O. SRINIVASA RAO, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O. RUDRAVARAM VILLAGE, SANTHANUTHALAPADU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 2. NALLURI BRAHMAIAH,, S/O. SUBBAIAH, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/O. RUDRAVARAM VILLAGE, SANTHANUTHALAPADU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 3. RACHAKONDA PARVATHI,, W/O. VENKAIAH, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O. RUDRAVARAM VILLAGE, SANTHANUTHALAPADU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 4. PAKALA ADILAKSHMI, PAKALA ADILAKSHMI, D/O. NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/O. RUDRAVARAM VILLAGE, SANTHANUTHALAPADU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 5. KILLA MALLIKARJUNA RAO,, S/O. KALLAIAH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/O. RUDRAVARAM VILLAGE, SANTHANUTHALAPADU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 6. KANDUKURU SUBHASHINI,, W/O. CHIRANJEEVI, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O. RUDRAVARAM VILLAGE, SANTHANUTHALAPADU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 7. PANDILLA DURGA MALLESWARI,, W/O. MURALI KRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O. RUDRAVARAM VILLAGE, SANTHANUTHALAPADU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 8. DUSARI VENKATESWARULU,, S/O. CHINNAKOTAIAH, AGED 2 HBKM,J W.P.No.9456 of 2020 ABOUT 81 YEARS, R/O. RUDRAVARAM VILLAGE, SANTHANUTHALAPADU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 9. RACHAKONDA SUJATHA,, W/O. KOTESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/O. RUDRAVARAM VILLAGE, SANTHANUTHALAPADU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 10. PATHURI SULOCHANA, , W/O. HANUMATHA RAO, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/O. RUDRAVARAM VILLAGE, SANTHANUTHALAPADU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 11. GUTTAPALLI ASHOK,, S/O. HANUMANTHA RAO, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O. RUDRAVARAM VILLAGE, SANTHANUTHALAPADU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 12. SHAKL MASTAN BEE,, S/O. PEERU SAHEB, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/O. RUDRAVARAM VILLAGE, SANTHANUTHALAPADU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 13. POTTI ANURADHA,, W/O. ANJINEYULU, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/O. RUDRAVARAM VILLAGE, SANTHANUTHALAPADU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 14. YELAGALA DHANALAKSHML,, W/O. VEERAIAH, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/O. RUDRAVARAM VILLAGE, SANTHANUTHALAPADU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 15. GALAM SUBBALAH,, S/O. VENKATESWARULU, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O. RUDRAVARAM VILLAGE, SANTHANUTHALAPADU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 16. VELAGANI MADHAVI,, W/O. VENKATESWARULU, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O. RUDRAVARAM VILLAGE, SANTHANUTHALAPADU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 17. DANDU MANGAMMA,, W/O. YOGESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, R/O. RUDRAVARAM VILLAGE, SANTHANUTHALAPADU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 18. IYNABATHINA SRINIVASA RAO,, S/O. VEERAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O. RUDRAVARAM VILLAGE, SANTHANUTHALAPADU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 3 HBKM,J W.P.No.9456 of 2020 19. UNDAVALLI PRASAD,, W/O. SURYAPRAKASHA RAO, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/O. RUDRAVARAM VILLAGE, SANTHANUTHALAPADU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI VILLAGE, TULLUR MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ONOGLE. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISION OFFICER, ONGOLE DIVISION, PRAKASAM DISTRICT AT ONGOLE. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, SANTHANUTHALAPADU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 5. THE MANDAL REVENUE INSPECTOR, SANTHANUTHALAPADU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 6. THE VILLAGE REVENUE OFFICER, , RUDRAVARAM REVENUE VILLAGE, SANTHANUTHALAPADU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. MADHAVA RAO NALLURI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 4 HBKM,J W.P.No.9456 of 2020 The Court made the following Order: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents. 2. This writ petition was filed questioning the action of the respondent Nos.4 to 6 in trying to dispossess the petitioners from their respective Plot Nos.79, 91, 45, 13, 25, 74, 80, 46, 34, 52, 83, 77, 87, 80, 14, 29, 27 and 40 situated in Sy.No.93/2B of Rudravaram Village, Santhanuthalapadu Mandal, Prakasam District by merging all the plots under the guise of re-plotting the remaining plots to assign the same to the houseless poor people under the Pedalandariki Illu Scheme. 3. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader relying upon the written instructions from the 4th respondent dated 05.08.2025 submits that there is no proposal for merging of the plots as contended by the petitioners. 4. In view of the above said facts and circumstances, recording the said instructions of the 4th respondent dated 05.08.2025, no further orders are necessary in this writ petition, as no cause survives. 5. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of. Interim order, if any, deemed to have been vacated. There shall be no order as to costs. The written instructions of the 4th respondent dated 05.08.2025 shall be made as part of the Court record. 5 HBKM,J W.P.No.9456 of 2020 As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE B. KRISHNA MOHAN 20.08.2025 PGT