Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 9811 (AP)

Bitragunta Padmavathi, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

WP/16663/2016 · 2025-01-27

K Manmadha Rao

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010108772016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3310] MONDAY ,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 16663/2016 Between: Bitragunta Padmavathi, ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. PEDDI VIJAYBHASKAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME (AP) 2. GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY (AP) 3. GP FOR REVENUE (AP) The Court made the following: ORDER: The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief: “….to issue a Wri,t Order Orders or Directions more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 2 to 6 in interfering into the petitioners physical possession and enjoyment of the property covered total extent of Ac.25.93 cents in Sy.No.541 (Ac.12.89), 542 (Ac.5.64), 543 (Ac 7.40) cents in Patta No.39 situated at Bogole Village and Mandalam, SPSR Neilore District pendency of the appeal before the Honble High Court covered in Decree and Judgment dated 01.4.2011 in OS.No.164 of 2007 is illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of law and also violation of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the petitioners land till the disposal of the appeal in A.S.No in the interest of justice.” 2. On an earlier occasion, i.e., on 20.01.2025, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner and the matter was directed to be listed on 27.01.2025 with a condition that no further time will be granted. 3. Today also, when the matter is taken up for hearing, there is no representation for the petitioner. It seems that the petitioner has no interest in prosecuting this Writ Petition. 4. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed as non prosecution. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________ DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J. Dated : 27.01.2025 TM THE HON’BLE Dr.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO W.P.No.16663 of 2016 Date: 27.01.2025 TM