APHC010419742018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] TUESDAY, THE 1st DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 19343/2018 Between: 1. SRI MEDIDA PRABHAKAR RAO,, S/O.LATE SOMAIAH, AGED ABOUT. 65 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURIST, R/O.MURTHY RAKSHANA NAGAR, 9TH WARD, BAPATLA MUNICIPALITY, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, (REVENUE), SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, (HOME), SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, GUNTUR DISTRICT AT GUNTUR. 4. THE THASILDAR, BAPATLA MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 5. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, GUNTUR RURAL POLICE, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 6. THE SHO, BAPATLA TOWN, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 7. SMT GARENEPUDIGUMMADI USHARANI, W/O.GARNEPUDI YESURAJU, AGED ABOUT. 35 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.18-5-15/A, HARIJANAPETA, OLD PONNUR, PONNUR MUNICIPALITY, 2 VS,J W.P.No.19343 of 2018 GUNTUR DISTRICT. 8. GARNEPUDI YESU RAJU, S/O.LATE JACOB, AGED ABOUT. 38 YEARS, R/O. MURTHY RAKSHANA NAGAR, BAPATLA MUNICIPALITY, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 9. GARNEPUDI MARIYAMMA, W/O.LATE JACOB, AGED ABOUT. 61 YEARS,. R/O. MURTHY RAKSHANA NAGAR, BAPATLA MUNICIPALITY, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 10. GARNEPUDI VIJAYA KUMAR, S/O.LATE JACOB, AGED ABOUT. 42 YEARS, R/A. MURTHY RAKSHANA NAGAR, BAPATLA MUNICIPALITY, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 11. PANTA KAMALA DEVI, W/O.ISRAEL, AGED ABOUT. 40 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.3-119, KAACHIVANI SINGARAM, GHATKESAR MANDAL, RANGA REDDY 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 appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAUMS declaring the action of the Respondents No.4 issuing proceedings R.C.No.565/2015/B, DT.06-06-2018 fixing the date of public auction Dt.I2- 06-2018 .in contrary to the Section 22, 23 86 36 of A.P. Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 as arbitrary, illegal and violation of Article 14,19, 21 86 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not proceed with the sale notice for sale of the petitioner house situated in Sy.No.773/2 for an extent of 121 Sq.Yards, 9th Ward, Bapatla Municipality, Guntur District and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2018 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 Stay all further proceedings notice issued by the 4th Respondent through R.C.No.565/2015/B, DT.06-06-2018 fixing the date of public auction Dt.12-06- 2018 for sale of the petitioner dwelling house situated in Sy.No.773/2 for an extent of 121 Sq.Yards, 9th Ward, Bapatla Municipality, Guntur District pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and pass 3 VS,J W.P.No.19343 of 2018 IA NO: 2 OF 2018 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 Stay the notice issued by the 4th Respondent through R.C.No.565/2015/‘, DT:24-08- 2018 fixing the date of public auction Dt:29-08-2018 for sale of the petitioner dwelling house situated in Sy.No.773/2 for an extent of 121 Sq.Yards, 9th Ward, Bapatla Municipality, Guntur District in contrary to the provision of Section 22, 23 & 36 of AP Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 pending disposal of the above Writ Petition pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. MEDIDA PRABHAKAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME (AP) 2. GP FOR REVENUE (AP) 3. SATHEESH KUMAR EERLA 4. SRINIVAS EMANI The Court made the following: 4 VS,J W.P.No.19343 of 2018 ORDER: When the writ petition came up for hearing on 04.08.2026, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner, as such, the matter was posted to 11.08.2026. Even on 11.08.2026, when the matter was called, there was no representation on behalf of counsel for the petitioner, hence, the matter was directed to be posted on 01.09.2026 under the caption ‘for dismissal’. Today, though the matter is listed under the caption ‘for dismissal’, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner. It seems that the petitioner is not evincing any interest in pursuing the matter. In view of the same, this writ petition is dismissed for default. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Petition shall stand closed. _____________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA 01.09.2026 Gss