S. DHANAMJAYA REDDY, CHITTOOR DIST v. SECY, REVENUE DEPT., HYD & 6 OT
WP/10442/2016 · 2026-02-15
Maheswara Rao Kuncheam
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 22656 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 22656 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
1
APHC010365092016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 10442 OF 2016 Between: S. Dhanamjaya Reddy, S/o Ramachandra Reddy, Age 63 years, R/o # 18-3-100, Sri Hari Colony, Near Alipiri P.S., Tirupathi, Chittoor District, A.P. ...Petitioner AND
1. State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by it’s Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad
2. The District Collector Chittoor District Tirupathi,
3. The Revenue Divisional Officer Chittoor Division, Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh
4. The Tahsildar S R Puram Mandal Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh
5. The Director of Mines and Geology, State of Andhra Pradesh, 8th Floor, BRKR Building, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad
6. The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Chittoor, Chittoor District
7. K Nagaiah, S/o.Peddannaiah, R/o Marripalli, South Kandriga, S.R. Puram Mandal, Chittoor District ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court
2
may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction of the respondents in considering the representation of the petitioner dt.01-11-2012 to take action against the Respondent No.7 for his illegal interference with quarry lease granted to the petitioner by the 5th respondent in Proc.No.36516/R5-1/2006, dt.31-12-2009 and work orders issued by the 6th respondent in Proc.No.3937/Q/2006, dt.27-01-2010 as arbitrary, illegal, unjust and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents 5 & 6 not to insist upon the petitioner to pay the Advance Dead Rent for the year 2015-16 pursuant to Notice No.2077/R5-1/2015, dt.19-01-2016 and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2016(WPMP 13147 OF 2016 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased direct the respondents 2 to 4 to consider and pass orders on the representation of the petitioner dt.02-1 1-2012 and 18-02-2016 pending disposal of the writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: P VIJAYA LAKSHMI Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY (AP) Counsel for the Respondents:V JAGAPATHI Counsel for the Respondents:GP FOR REVENUE (AP) Counsel for the Respondents:GP FOR INDUSTRIES COMMERCE (AP) The Court made the following order:
3
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION No.10442 OF 2016
ORDER:
The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following main prayer:
“to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction of the respondents in considering the representation of the petitioner dt.01-11-2012 to take action against the Respondent No.7 for his illegal interference with quarry lease granted to the petitioner by the 5th respondent in Proc.No.36516/R5-1/2006, dt.31-12-2009 and work orders issued by the 6th respondent in Proc.No.3937/Q/2006, dt.27-01-2010 as arbitrary, illegal, unjust and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents 5 & 6 not to insist upon the petitioner to pay the Advance Dead Rent for the year 2015-16 pursuant to Notice No.2077/R5-1/2015, dt.19-01-2016 and pass …..”
2. When the matter is taken up for hearing, Ms.P.Vijaya Lakshmi,
learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that in view of subsequent events taken place in the lis, the cause in the writ petition does not survive for further adjudication and the writ petition becomes infructuous.
4
3. Recording the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed.
______________________________ MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM, J Date:16.02.2026 Rns
5
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM
WRIT PETITION No.10442 of 2016
Date:16.02.2026 Rns