Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 7522 (AP)

T Sudhakar Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

WP/1489/2023 · 2026-08-10

Ravi Cheemalapati

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 APHC010030942023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] TUESDAY, THE 11th DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 1489/2023 Between: T Sudhakar Reddy ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K NARSI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following order: The short grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent authorities are trying to lay road in his land admeasuring 34 Sq.Yards in Sy.No.35-1 situated in Burujugadda Village, Vayalpad Mandal, Annamayya district, without issuing any notice and without following due process of law. 2. Heard Ms Saritha, learned counsel representing learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Venkata Satya Narayana, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. 2 3. When the matter is taken up for consideration, Sri Venkata Satya Narayana, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue while placing reliance on the instructions of the Tahsildar, Valmikipuram submitted that the petitioner has encroached a part of Government land in Sy.No.42 of Velagalapalle village which is classified as „Foot Path‟ wherein the petitioner was evicted by following due process of law. He further submitted that, the authorities are not interfering with the petitioner‟s property admeasuring 34 Sq.Yards in Sy.No.35-1 as alleged by him. 4. In view of the said submission that the respondent authorities are not interfering with the petitioner‟s subject property, there is no purpose in keeping the writ petition pending, as such, this Court is inclined to dispose of the same with the following direction: “The respondent authorities are directed not to interfere with the subject property except under due process of law”. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI BRS