1 APHC010365592021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3328] FRIDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 22159/2021 Between: 1. KATAKAM INNA REDDY, S/O JOSEPH REDDY, AGED ABUT 53 YEARS, R/O H.NO.9-1-99, TATACHARI COMPOUND, S.D,ROAD, SECUNDERABAD-25 2. KATAKAM ANANDA REDDY, S/O JOSEPH REDDY, AGED ABUT 51 YEARS, R/O H.NO.9-1-99, TATACHARI COMPOUND, S.D. ROAD, SECUNDERABAD-25 ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, THROUGH PRL. SECRETARY, REVENUE (STAMPS AND REGISTRATION) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI 2. THE COMMISIONER AND INSPECTOR GENERAL STAMPS AND REGISTRATION, DEPT., VIJAYAWADA, 3. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR, (STAMPS AND REGISTRATION) DEPT., GUNTUR. 4. THE SUBREGISTRAR, STAMPS AND REGISTRATION DEPT., GURAJALA, GUNTUR DT. 5. THE COMMISSIONER AND DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, GUNTER. 6. THE REGIONAL DIRECTORCUMAPPELLATE COMMISSIONER, , MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, GUNTUR. 7. DACHEPALLI NAGAR PANCHAYAT THROUGH ITS COMMISSIONER, , DACHEPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2 8. KATAKAM VIJAYA KUMAR REDDY, S/O JOSEPH REDDY, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/O D.NO.9-441, NARAYANAPURAM (H/O NADIKUDI), DACHEPALLI (M), GUNTUR DISTRICT 9. SMT K VIJAYARANI, W/O VIJAYA KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O D.NO.9-441, NARAYANAPURAM (H/O NADIKUDI), DACHEPALLI (M), GUNTUR DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. VAJJHALA SATYANARAYANA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. SIREESHA RANI VALLABHANENI,STANDING COUNSEL FOR MUNICIPALITIES 2. GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS (AP) 3. P S P SURESH KUMAR 4. GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV The Court made the following: ORAL ORDER: No representation on behalf of the Writ Petitioners. 2. Smt. Sireesha Rani Vallabhaneni, learned Standing Counsel for Municipalities and Sri B. Subramanya Kumar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri P.S.P. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos.8 & 9 are present. 3. On 02.03.2026, when this Writ Petition was listed, none appeared for the Writ Petitioners. Therefore, this Writ Petition is listed today under the caption ‘for dismissal’. 4. Today also, there is no representation on behalf of the Writ Petitioners. 5. In this view of the matter, this Writ Petition is dismissed for Non-prosecution. No order as to costs. 3 6. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. ______________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Dt:06.03.2026 Vns