APHC010122512026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT APPEAL Nos.270 & 271 of 2026 Bench Sr.Nos:-6 & 7 [3552] W.A.No.270 of 2026:- Jayendra Nagar Residents Welfare Association ...Appellant Vs. Vasamsetty Apparao and others ...Respondents ********** Advocate for appellants : Sri Venkat Challa Advocates for respondents : Sri Meka Rahul Chowdary, Sri M. Krishna Rao CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 13th March 2026 P C : The present Writ Appeals have been preferred against the common judgment and order dated 08.01.2026 in Writ Petition Nos.11254 of 2013 and 13428 of 2015. 2. The petitioners’ grievance before the learned single Judge was against the claim made by the municipal authorities, who claimed that the property which the petitioners claimed as their property was, in fact, an open space in a sanctioned layout. 2 3. On a perusal of the judgment and order impugned, it appears that the contention of the municipal authorities was recorded that they were not interfering with the petitioners’ possession and enjoyment over the property which form the subject matter of the writ petitions and it was on recording of such a contention that the municipal authorities were neither interfering with the petitioners’ property nor claiming any right over it, that the petitions came to be disposed of. Apart from this, even the contention of respondent No.4 in the writ petitions was recorded that he did not dispute the contention of the Municipality and that respondent No.4 – the appellant herein was impleaded only to place his point of view insofar as the case of the petitioners is concerned. It was in that backdrop, the petitions came to be disposed of with a direction to the respondents not to interfere with the petitioners’ possession and enjoyment over the schedule property. 4. The principal ground of challenge in the present writ appeals is that the learned counsel for respondent No.4 – appellant herein was never authorized by the appellant to make any such statement, which led to the passing of the judgment and order impugned, and that the counter affidavit which was filed on record suggested to the contrary. 5. It is settled law that no writ appeal would apply against an order of consent and after recording the statement of the learned counsel which carries a presumption that his statement was made on the basis of instructions given by the concerned party whom the counsel represents. 3 There is no affidavit placed on record sworn by the learned counsel that he had not been instructed in the matters to make such a statement which came to be recorded by the learned single Judge. 6. Notwithstanding the legal position as it stands today, we feel that if at all the appellant had any right, he should have approached the learned single Judge, perhaps, by filing a review petition on the issue which is sought to be urged before us. We do not deem it an appropriate case for interference in the present writ appeals, which we dispose of accordingly with liberty as granted aforesaid. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J AMD 4 94 HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT APPEAL Nos.270 & 271 of 2026 Dt:13.03.2026 AMD