Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 51971 (AP)

Galinki Fransesu, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh,

WP/7668/2018 · 2025-11-23

Ninala Jayasurya

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010170082018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA WRIT PETITION No.7668 OF 2018 Between: Galinki Fransesu, S/o Galinki Venkanna, Aged about 42 years, Occ. Agriculture R/o H.No.7-128, Arundhati Peta, Taduwai village, Jangareddygudem Mandal West Godavari District. ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Thullulru Mandal Amaravathi, Guntur District, and others. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr.V.Ganesh Bhujanga Rao Counsel for the Respondents: G.P. for Assignment G.P. for Social Welfare The Court made the following ORDER: The present writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: “ … … declaring the action of the respondents 2 to 6 in issuing the Pattadar pass books, Title deeds and also D-Form Patta in favour of third parties who are not the beneficiaries of the Bhoodhan Gramdhan Act and also violated Under Section 14(1) of Act, 13 of the Bhoodhan, Gramdhan Act is illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violation of Articles 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents 2 to 6 to sanction the benefits issued by the 6th respondent in favour of the 2 petitioner while treating him as legitimate beneficiary of the originally allotted land to an extent of Ac.0.98 in Sy.No.9/3 situated at Taduwai Village, Jangareddygudem Mandal, West Godavari District. …” 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner while furnishing the copies of the orders in Writ Petition No.33980 of 2018 and Writ Petition No.34076 of 2018, dated 20.9.2018, states that the present writ petition can as well be disposed of, by passing similar order. 3. Mr.K.Arjun Chowdary, learned Assistant Government Pleader, however, placed a copy of the written instructions dated 18.11.2025 received from the respondent No.4 for perusal of this Court, wherein it is, inter alia stated that there is no proposal for acquisition of the subject matter land under R&R Scheme. However, as seen from the copy of the Pattadar Adangal dated 18.11.2025, which is enclosed to the said instructions, in respect of the subject land, the name of one Gelanki Venkayya is reflected in the column of pattadar and enjoyer. 4. In the light of the said instructions, the writ petition is closed. The closure of the writ petition, however, would not preclude the writ petitioner to seek recourse to law. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ NINALA JAYASURYA,J November 24, 2025 vasu