WP/1924/2024 of DARLA PRASANNA KUMARI Vs THE STATE OF AP on 1 September 2026

1. DARLA PRASANNA KUMARI, W/O MADANA MOHANA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, HOUSEWIFE, R/O. D.NO. 55/4, HARINATH STREET, RAYACHOTI TOWN, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT (FORMERLY KADAPA DISTRICT).

2. DARLA MADANA MOHANA,, S/O GURAVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O D.NO. 55/4, HARINATH STREET, RAYACHOTI TOWN, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT (FORMERLY KADAPA DISTRICT).

...PETITIONER(S) AND

1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

2. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT AT RAYACHOTI. (FORMERLY KADAPA DISTRICT)

3. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, RAYACHOTI URBAN POLICE STATION, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT, (FORMERLY KADAPA DISTRICT)

4. DARLA HARITHA, W/O LATE SRINIVASULU, AGED ABOUT

YEARS, R/O SETTIPALLE VILLAGE, SAMBEPALLI MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. (FORMERLY KADAPA DISTRICT)

5. BATHINA VENKATESWARA, S/O LATE VENKATA RAMANA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, R/O SETTIPALLE VILLAGE, SAMBEPALLI MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT, (FORMERLY KADAPA DISTRICT)

6. BATHINA ANJANA KUMAR, S/O LATE VENKATA RAMANA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS. WORKING AS TEACHER AT V.R.SCHOOL, RAYACHOTI TOWN AND MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT.

(FORMERLY KADAPA DISTRICT).

7. BATHINA ARUNA, D/O. BATHINA VENKATA RAMANA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, ANGANWADI WORKER, R/O SETTIPALLE VILLAGE, SAMBEPALLI MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT, (FORMERLY KADAPA DISTRICT)

8. GUVVALA BALAJI, S/O VENKATA RAMANA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS. EMPLOYEE AT MUNICIPALITY, RAYACHOTI TOWN AND MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT, (FORMERLY KADAPA DISTRICT).

9. SETTIPALLI SUDARSHAN, S/O. NOT KNOWN, AGED ABOUT

YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION,

R/O SETTIPALLE VILLAGE, SAMBEPALLE MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT (FORMERLY KADAPA 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 to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the 3 rd respondent at the instance of respondents 4 to 9 in insisting the petitioners to appear before his authority and insisting them to vacate from their house and site properties in an extent of 195.83 Sq. Yards covered by S.No. 675/2B1 and D.No. 55/2, 3, 4 situated at Rayachoti Town of Rayachoti Mandal in Annamayya District (Formerly Kadapa District), as illegal, irregular, and irrational and without any authority of law and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents, particularly 3 rd respondent not to insist the petitioners to vacate from their aforesaid property nor interfere with petitioner's liberty in any manner and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 direct the 3rd respondent not to insist the petitioners to appear before his authority nor insist them to vacate from their house and site property of 195.83 Sq. Yards covered by S.No. 675/2B1 and D.No. 55/2,3,4 situated at Rayachoti Town of Rayachoti Mandal in Annamayya District (Formerly Kadapa District), pending disposal of the main Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. NIMMAGADDA REVATHI Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR HOME (AP) The Court made the following:

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 1924 of 2024 The Court made the following Order:

Instant Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “…..to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the 3 rd respondent at the instance of respondents 4 to 9 in insisting the petitioners to appear before his authority and insisting them to vacate from their house and site properties in an extent of 195.83 Sq. Yards covered by S.No. 675/2B1 and D.No. 55/2, 3, 4 situated at Rayachoti Town of Rayachoti Mandal in Annamayya District (Formerly Kadapa District), as illegal, irregular, and irrational and without any authority of law and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents, particularly 3 rd respondent not to insist the petitioners to vacate from their aforesaid property nor interfere with petitioner's liberty in any manner and pass….”

2. When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in view of the subsequent events causing initiated proper proceedings the cause of action stated in the lis.

3. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home also not disputed the same.

4. Accordingly, by recording the said submissions, the Writ Petition is closed for any aggrieved leaving open to the legal remedies in accordance with law.

There shall be no order as to costs. Interlocutory applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.

____________________________________ JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM

Date: 02.09.2026 RMR

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM

WRIT PETITION NO: 1924 of 2024

Date: 02.09.2026

RMR