APHC010261012026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3562] THURSDAY, THE 2nd DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA WRIT APPEAL NO: 655/2026 Between: 1. A. SARAVANAN,, S/O. LATE PONNUSWAMY, AGED 45 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. 1-79, NETHAM KANDRIGA, NAGARI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. A. MUTHUSWAMY,, S/O. LATE ARJUN REDDY, AGED 79 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. 3-33, BAJANAGUDI STREET, NETHAMKANDRIGA, NAGARI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. A. ARUNAGIRI,, S/O. VENUGOPAL, AGED 41 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. 94/4-69, LAKSHMIPURAM, N.KANDRIGA, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 4. SELVAM PAVANKUMAR,, S/O. SELVA REDDY, AGED 29 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. 4-55/B, NETHAM KANDRIGA, NAGARI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 5. M.A. STALIN REDDY,, S/O. LATE ARJUN REDDY, AGED 73 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. 4-55C, NETHAM KANDRIGA, NAGARI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...APPELLANT(S) AND 2 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, , REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS AT VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-522237. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT AT CHITTOOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH- 517590. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER RDO, , NAGARI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH-517590. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, NAGARI MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH- 517590. 5. THE NAGARI MUNICIPALITY, NAGARI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH- 517590. REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER. 6. THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER, IRRIGATION AND CAD DEPARTMENT, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-517590. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. V SAI KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. Gudapati Lakshminarayana SC For Municipalities in Rayalaseema Region 3. GP FOR IRRI AND CAD The Court made the following: 3 Date of reserved for orders : ----------- Date of pronouncement : 02-07-2026 Date of uploading : 08-07-2026 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA WRIT APPEAL No.655 of 2026 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari) In the morning session, at the time of mention, learned counsel for the appellants made a request for adjournment, which was not entertained for the reason that learned counsel for the respondents was not present at that time and the learned counsel was informed that the matter would be taken up when its turn comes and at that time request can be made. 2. When the matter was called, none appears for the appellants. 3. Sri Dilip Naik, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, appears for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Sri S.Satish Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation appears for respondent No.6. 4 4. The docket order also shows that on the first date i.e. 15.06.2026, the following order was passed: “At request of learned counsel for the appellants, list on 18.06.2026.” 5. Thereafter, on 18.06.2026, the following order was passed: “Request has been made on behalf of learned counsel for the appellants for adjournment, to which, learned counsel for the respondents has no objection. 2. Post after two (02) weeks.” 6. The writ appellants filed W.P.No.10798 of 2026, which is pending before the learned Single Judge. In the said writ petition, the learned Single Judge vide order dated 22.04.2026 was not inclined to grant interim order for the time being and the counter- affidavit was invited. The order in para Nos.5, 6 and 7 reads as under: “5. under these circumstances, let Counter Affidavit be filed within four weeks. Two weeks thereafter for filing Rejoinder, if any. 6. In the present facts and circumstances, this Court is is not inclined to grant Interim Order for the time being. 7. List the matter on 29.06.2026.” 7. The writ petition was directed to be listed on 29.06.2026. 8. We are of the view, considering the nature of the order that the learned Single Judge was not inclined to grant interim order for the 5 time being and invited the counter-affidavit, that such as order does not fall within the meaning of the expression ‘judgment’ under clause No.15 of the Letters Patent. 9. However, as none appears, the Writ Appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution. There shall be no order as to costs. 10. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI, J ______________________ SUBHENDU SAMANTA, J Date: 02.07.2026 Pab Whether the order is: Speaking ☑ Reasoned Reportable Non-reportable ☑ 6 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA WRIT APPEAL No.655 of 2026 DATE: 02.07.2026 Pab