Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 48111 (AP)

Chinabuddula Yesamma v. The State of Andhra Pradesh,

WP/25641/2020 · 2025-09-23

B Krishna Mohan

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010384272020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3233] WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN WRIT PETITION NO: 25641/2020 Between: 1. CHINABUDDULA YESAMMA, W/O LOVARAJU AGE. 30 YEARS, OCC. AGRL. LABOUR, D.NO. 8-205, THAMMA RAO PETA, KORUKONDA, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 2. CHINABUDDULA RAMANA, W/O PANDU AGE. 28 YEARS, 0CC. AGRL. LABOUR, D.NO. 8-205, THAMMA RAO PETA, KORUKONDA, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 3. CHINABUDDULA KATTAMMA, W/O SAI AGE. 32 YEARS, 0CC. AGRL. LABOUR, D.NO. 8-201, THAMMA RAO PETA, KORUKONDA, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 4. VADDI KUMARI, W/O SATYANARAYANA AGE. 44 YEARS, OCC. AGRI. LABOUR, 63-12-26, SIDDARDHA NAGAR, RAJAHMUNDRY, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 5. JAKKATA PANDAVULU, S/O RAMULU AGE. 45 YEARS, OCC. AGRL. LABOUR, D.NO. 9-1055, SANOTORIUM, KONTHAMURU, RAJAHMUNDRY, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 6. KADI VENKATA NAGAMANI, W/O SIVA D.NO. 24-8-135/22, VENKATESWARA COLONY KAKINADA, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 7. INAPURAPU SURYANARAYANA, S/O TIRAPAIAH. AGE. 56 YEARS, SECRETARY TO DALIT BAHUJAN VYAVASAYA KARMIKA SANGHAM, D.NO. 24-8-135/13, KAKINADA EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 2 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS. SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY REVENUE (ASSIGHMENT-1) DEPT., SECRETARIAT BUILDING, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER LAND ADMINISTRATION, D.NO. 22-19 FLOOR II BLOCK A JASTHI TOWERS SAI PURAM COLONY ROAD GOLLAPUDI, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KAKINADA, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...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 pleased topleased to issue a Writ , order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of Respondents No 1 and 2 in issuance of G.O.Ms No. 367 Rev ( Assignment-I) Dept. Dt. 19-08-2019 for distribution of Hou e Sites irrespective of Caste for the homeless poor, under Navaratnalu - Program is bad, illegal, arbitrary, un-constitutional, clear violation of Article 14, 15 (4), 21, and 46 of Constitution of India and contrary to Section 14 (1) proviso of Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agri. Holdings) Act, 1973, and set-aside the same and consequently direct the Respondents No. 1, and 2 to issue afresh Government orders duly take in to consideration of Article 14, 15 (4), 21, and 46 of Constitution of India, r/w Section 14 (1) proviso of Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agrl. Holdings) Act, 1973, distribute House-sites pattas under Navaratnalu - Program and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2020 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 pleased to stay the operation of G.O.Ms No. 367 Rev (Assignment-I) Dept. Dt. 19-08-2019 pertaining to distribution of House- sites under Navaratnalu Program, issued by Respondent No.1 pending disposal of main writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. J SATYA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 3 The Court made the following Order: Heard Sri Sriman, learned counsel appearing 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.1 & 2 in issuance of G.O.Ms.No.367 Rev (Assignment- I) Dept. dt.19.08.2019 for distribution of house sites irrespective of caste for the homeless poor, under Navaratnalu Programme. 3. The learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that, already the impugned G.O.Ms.No.367 dated 19.08.2019 was implemented, as such no cause survives in this matter. 4. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. Interim order if any, deemed to have been vacated. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________ JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN 24.09.2025 NNN