Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 51165 (AP)

Swayambarapu Kondamma v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

WP/4815/2020 · 2025-09-17

B Krishna Mohan

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010080572020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3233] THURSDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN WRIT PETITION NO: 4815/2020 Between: 1. SWAYAMBARAPU KONDAMMA, D/O (LATE) DAKAMARRI RMULU AGED 42 YRS , KOTTHA KOVVADA VILLAGE REDDIPALLI, PADMANABHAM MANDAL VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY(REVENUE) SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI , AMARAVATHI. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, VISAKHAPATNAM. 3. THE METROPOLITAN COMMISSIONER, VISAKHAPATNAM METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (VMRDA) VISAKHAPATNAM. 4. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, VISAKHAPATNAM. 5. MANDAL REVENUE OFFICER, PADMANABHAM MANDAL VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. R SIVA SAI SWARUP 2 Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE (AP) 2. V SURYA KIRAN KUMAR (SC FOR VMRDA and MUDA) The Court made the following: 3 Order: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents. 2. This writ petition was filed questioning the action of the respondents in trying to interfere with the petitioner’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property covered in Survey No.350/5, to an extent of Ac.0.87 cents, through Title Deed Passbook No.199, covered by D-Patta in the name of the petitioner’s father (deceased) Dakamarri Ramulu, situated at Gandhavaram Village, Padmanabham Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, including eviction of the petitioner under the guise of the Government scheme Navaratnalu – Pedalandariki Illu. 3. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader, relying upon the counter of the 5th respondent, submits that the subject land is not identified for the above said public purpose. 4. In view of the same, no further orders are necessary in this writ petition. 5. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Interim orders, if any, stands vacated. As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________ JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN 18.09.2025 PNS