Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 49335 (AP)

Kota Sithamma v. . The State of Andhra Pradesh

WP/9307/2022 · 2025-09-16

B Krishna Mohan

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010168062022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3233] WEDNESDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN WRIT PETITION NO: 9307/2022 Between: 1. KOTA SITHAMMA, W/O. SRI JAGGU NAIDU, AGED 47 YEARS, 0CC HOUSE HOLD DUTIES, R/O. DOOR NO.5-310/9, II FLOOR, MAIN ROAD, NEAR KRISHNAPURAM, AMADALAVALASA MUNICIPALITY, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY(REVENUE)DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT, SRIKAKULAM 3. THE TAHSILDAR, AMADALAVALASA MANDAL, AMADALAVALASA, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 4. PYDI SYAMALA RAO DIED, S/O. NARAYANA MURTHY, AGED 60 YEARS, R/O. KRISHNAPURAM VILLAGE, AMADALAVALASA, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 5. PYDI PRABHAVATHI W/O LATE PYDI SYAMALA RAO, AGED 60 YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE, R/O KRISHNAPURAM VILLAGE, AMADALAVALASA MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 6. PYDI MALLESWARA RAO S/O LATE PYDI SYAMALA RAO, AGED 37 YEARS, OCC PAN SHOP BUSINESS, R/O KRISHNAPURAM 2 VILLAGE,AMADALAVALASA MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 7. GANDEM RAJU W/O SRIKANTH D/O LATE PYDI SYAMALA RAO, AGED 42 YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE, R/O KRISHNAPURAM VILLAGE,AMADALAVALASA MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 8. SAMPATHIRAO BHAVANI W/O LATE RAMAKRISHNA, D/O LATE PYDI SYAMALA RAO, AGED 33 YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE, R/O KRISHNAPURAM VILLAGE, AMADALAVALASA MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. RR 5 TO 8 ARE BROUGHT ON RECORD AS L.RS OF THE DECEASED 4TH RESPONDENT AS PER THE COURT ORDER DT.26.10.2024 VIDE ORDERS PASSED IN I.A.NO.01 OF 2024 ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. T D PANI KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. SRINIVAS AMBATI The Court made the following: 3 Order: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.5 to 8. 2. This writ petition was filed questioning the action of the 3rd respondent in issuing the endorsement vide R.C.No.337/2021 A, dated 01.10.2021, and taking action against the 4th respondent, who allegedly forged the signature of the official, directing the petitioner to approach the police department. 3. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader, relying upon the written instructions of the 3rd respondent dated 19.08.2025, submits that the District Collector, Srikakulam, has addressed the Station House Officer, Amadalavalasa, to take appropriate action against the encroachers for removing the encroachments and the Deputy Executive Engineer (R&B), Amadalavalasa and the Commissioner, Amadalavalasa Municipality, Amadalavalasa, have been requested to take appropriate action in the matter.. The Superintendent of Police, Srikakulam, Sub Divisional Officer, Srikakulam and Inspector of Police, Srikakulam, have also been requested to cause a detailed enquiry to take appropriate action against Sri Pydi Syamala Rao of Krishnapuram Village, Amadalavalasa Municipality, who allegedly encroached upon the R&B Road as per the records within the municipal limits and to provide necessary bandobust to remove the encroachment by taking appropriate action. 4 4. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that with respect to the said allegation of forgery by the deceased 4th respondent, a crime was also registered vide Crime No.21/2023 before Amadalavalasa Police Station, and consequently a charge sheet was filed vide C.C.No.45 of 2024 by the police on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Amadalavalasa, which is pending for consideration. 5. In view of the above said submissions made on both the sides, as the crime was already registered and is pending before the appropriate criminal Court, no further orders can be passed in this writ petition. 6. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. 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 17.09.2025 PNS