Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 3423 (AP)

GURAJALA VENKATA MADHAVI v. THE STATE OF AP

WA/29/2025 · 2025-01-20

Maheswara Rao Kuncheam, R Raghunandan Rao

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT APPEAL NO: 29 OF 2025 ^ Writ Appeal under Clause 15^f the Letters Patent Appeal preferred against the Judgment in W.P.No. 27643/2024 dated 27-11-'2024, on the file of the High Court. Between: 1. Gurajala Venkata Madhavi, W/o.Vasu, Aged about R/o.Vinjamur, Vinjamur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. Mandadi Krishna Veni, W/o.Vinay Babu, Aged about R/o.Vinjamur, Vinjamur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. 42 years. 2. 39 years. ...APPELLANTS-' AND 1. The State of AP, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati. The District Collector, SPSR Nellore District, at Nellore. The Joint Collector, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kavali, SPSR Nellore District. The Tahsildar, Vinjamur Mandal, Vinjamur, SPSR Nellore District. The Deputy Tahsildar, Vinjamur, SPSR Nellore District. The Village Revenue Officer, Vinjamur Village, Vinjamur Mandal, SPSR^. Nellore District. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Shaik Tatichetia Mahaboob, Mastan, S/o.Nagur Saheb, aged about 40 years R/o.Gangamitta, Near Gangamma Temple, Vinjamur., Vinjamur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. ...RESPONDENTS- lA NO: 1 OF 2025 ^ 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 direct the Respondents not to dispossess the Petitioners from the lands an extent of Ac.0.08 cents (Ac.0.04 cents each) in Sy.No.539/2 of Vinjamur Village & Mandal, SPSR Nellore District, pending disposal of the above with writ appeal. ^ Counsel for the Appellant: SRI BOLLA VENKATA RAMA RAQ Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 7: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.8: SRI KISHORE KUMAR KATARI . The Court made the following: JUDGMENT APHC010016312025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3508] MONDAY. THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT APPEAL NO: 29/2025 Between: Gurajala Venkata Madhavi and Others ...APPELLANT(S) AND The State Of Ap and Others Counsel for the Appellant(S): ...RESPONDENT(S) 1. BOLLA VENKATA RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.KISHORE KUMAR KATARI 2.GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following Judgment: (perHon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) This Writ Appeal is filed, against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 27.11.2024, dismissing the Writ Petition, on the ground that, the writ petitioners had suppressed the fact that, a complaint had been registered against the writ petitioners and that a quash petition filed against the said complaint had been disposed of with a direction to the authorities to continue investigation without initiating any coercive steps against the writ petitioners. 2 RRR,J & MRK,J W.A.No.29 of 2025 2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants, would submit that, the said omission of such facts, in the Writ Petition, was not intentional and in any event, the relief sought in the present Writ Petition is different. It is the of the appellants that, pattas granted to the appellants, which were found to be genuine by the Tahsildar, had been revoked and the land is said to be allotted to the third parties, which is arbitrary and violative of the rights of the case appellants. not have a case requiring the While, the appellants may or may interference of this Court, it is settled law that this Court will not help those 3. who approach this Court by way of suppression of facts. 4. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any shall stand As a closed. Sd/- WI RAMESH BABU deputy registrar //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1. One CC to Sri Bolla Venkata Rama Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to Sri Kishore Kumar Katari, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUTT 4. Three CD Copies TF HIGH COURT DATED:20/01/2025 ORDER WA.No.29 of 2025 10 FEB 2025 o foil ^ . Current Section ^ . ^Si£ffSPATCVA5$-^ DISMISSING THE W.A., WITHOUT COSTS