DR. KANAGALA PRASANNA KUMAR, GUNTUR DIST.,& ANR. v. THE COMMISSIONER OF ENDOW.,HYD.,& 4 OTRS.
WP/6399/2014 · 2026-02-16
Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 26634 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 26634 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
APHC010637852014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] TUESDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 6399/2014 Between:
1. DR. KANAGALA PRASANNA KUMAR, GUNTUR DIST.,& ANR., OCCU: DOCTOR, FLAT NO.301, RAMYA APARTMENTS, MAIN ROAD, LAXMIPURAM, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. SMT. KANAGALA VEENA DEVI, W/O.DR.K.PRASANNA KUMAR,, OCCU: HOUSEWIFE, FLAT NO.301, RAMYA APARTMENTS, MAIN ROAD, LAXMIPURAM, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND
1. THE COMMISSIONER OF ENDOW HYD 4 OTRS, BOGGULAKUNTA, HYDERABAD. 2. THE ASST COMMISSIONER OF ENDOWMENTS, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR GUNTUR GUNTUR DISTRICT, -
4. THE TAHSILDAR GUNTUR MANDAL GUNTUR DISTRICT, -
5. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR STAMPS REGISTRATION, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toto issue any appropriate Writ, Order or Direction More particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus, declaring the action of the 1st and 2nd
2
respondents in not informing the final/ultimate result in LPA No.104/1974 dated 09-07-1976 wherein it was declared that the subject land as patta land and also the order of the 3rd respondent, in Proc.No. Rc.No.1995/2012-E2, dated 18-05-2012 as illegal, arbitrary, malafide, intentional and consequently set aside the same in view of the orders passed by the Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of A.P., in LPA 104/1976 dated 09-07-1976 IA NO: 1 OF 2014(WPMP 7948 OF 2014 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 to suspend the orders of the 3rd respondent in proceedings Rc. No.1995/2012- E.2; dated 18-05-2012 Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. A RAMAKRISHNA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR REVENUE
2. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made the following:
3
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 6399/2014 ORDER:
When the matter is taken up for hearing, it is observed from the proceeding sheet that there was no representation for the petitioners on 31.07.2024 and 09.02.2026. The matter is posted to today under the caption ‘for dismissal’. Even today there is no representation on behalf of the petitioners. This indicates that the petitioners are not evincing any interest in prosecuting the matter. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution.
There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. ________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 17.02.2026 TTPPSS
4
200 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA
WRIT PETITION NO: 6399/2014
17.02.2026 TTPPSS