R. RAMAKRISHNA REDDY, CHITTOOR DIST. v. R. RADHAKRISHNA REDDY & 5 ORS.
WA/1298/2012 · 2025-03-13
K Manmadha Rao, R Raghunandan Rao
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 15924 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 15924 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVAT THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO/ AND THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT APPEAL NO: 1298 OF 2012 ^ Writ Appeal under clause lfof the Letters Patent dated 06.07.2009 in WPNo.8435/2001 Between: R.Ramakrishna Reddy, S/o. R.Chenga Reddy Ramasamudram Mandal, Chittoor District. against the order on the file of the High Court. R/o. K.C.Palli Village ...Appellant/Respondent No.6 AND
1. R. Radhakrishna Reddy, S/o. R. Narayana Reddy, aged 45 K.C.Palli Village, Ramasamudram Mandal, Chittoor District. 2. The Sub Collector, Madanapalli, Chittoor District. 3. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Ramasamudram Mandal District. 4. The Village Administrative Officer, Moogavadi, Ramasamudram Mandal, Chittoor District. 5. The Village Administrative Officer, Voolapadu, Ramasamudram Chittoor District. 6. The Village Administrative Officer, K.C.Palli, Ramasamudram Mandai, Chittoor District. 7. Venkata Ramana Reddy, S/o. Reddyvari Subba Reddy, Aged R/o. K.C.Palli Village & Post, Ramasamudram Mandal (R7 IS impleaded as per Court order dt.11/12/12 in WAMP 3109/12) ...RESPONDENTS years, R/o. , Chittoor Mandal, 60 years, Chittoor District. V ^ i.A. NO: 2 OF 2012(WAMP. NO: 3112 OF 2012) 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 suspend the orders dt: 06.07.2009 passed in WP.No.8435/2001, pending disposal of the writ appeal. Counsel for the Appellant: SRI J.V.PHANIDUTH ' Counsel for the Respondent No.1:SRI N. SIVA REDDY-- Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 to 6: SRI K. MOHAN RAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.7: P VINOD KUMAR ^ The Court made the following: JUDGMENT
- aSfe APHC010206562012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3525] THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT APPEAL NO: 1298/2012 Between: R. Ramakrishna Reddy, Chittoor Dist.
...APPELLANT AND R Radhakrishna Reddy 5 Ors and Others Counsel for the Appellant: 1.J.V.PHANIDUTH Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.N SIVA REDDY 2.P VINOD KUMAR 3.K MOHAN RAMI REDDY The Court made the following Judgment: (per Hon’ble Sri justice R. Raghunandan Rao) The 1®* respondent herein had approached this Court by way of W.P.No.8435 of 2001 being aggrieved by the correction in the revenue records, in relation to Ac.42.00 cents of land, in Kudurucheemanapalli Village & Post, Ramasamudram Mandal, Chittoor District. The complaint of the 1 respondent was that his right in the family property was being affected by changes in the revenue entries and the subsequent refusal of the Sub- Collector, Mandanapalle, in rejecting his appeal filed against such changes. ...RESPONDENT(S) St
2
2. A Learned Single Judge of the erstwhile High Court of Judicatu Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, by Judgment dated 06.07.2009, had allowed the Writ Petition by setting aside the Order dated 07.04.2001, passed by the Sub-Collector, Mandanpalli, D.Dis.E/1227/2000. re. Chittoor District, in proceedings bearing
3. Aggrieved by the said Order dated 06.07.2009, the 6*^ respondent in the Writ Petition has filed the present Writ Appeal. 4. It appears that during the pendency of the present Writ Appeal, one of the other coparceners is said to have filed O.S.No.51 of 2012 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Mandanpalli, Chittoor District, for partition of the said properties. As the said suit and any subsequent appeal, would decide the rights of the members of the family, over the said land, it would be appropriate to close this Writ Appeal with an observation that the rights of the parties would be determined in the aforesaid suit and subsequent appeal if any. 5. Accordingly, this Writ Appeal is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- M.RAMESH BABU deputy registrar //TRUE COPY// OFFICER SE To,
1. One CC to Sri J.V.Phaniduth, Advocate [OPUC]
2. One CC to Sri P. Vinod Kumar, Advocate [OPUC]
3. One CC to Sri K. Mohan Rami Reddy, Advocate
4. One CC to Sri N. Siva Reddy, Advocate [OPUC]
5. Two CC’s to GP for Revenue, High Court of A.P. at Amaravati[OUT]
6. Three CD Copies, ssb
HIGH COURT DATED:13/03/2025 JUDGMENT WA.No.1298 of 2012 and(S&.& X 2 5 MAR 2025 ^ . Currenl oecuon ^ CLOSING THE W.A. WITHOUT COSTS