Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/10760/2023 of NATTA ADAMU Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 10 August 2026
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: 10760/2023 Between: Natta Adamu and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh
APHC010153292023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE 11th DAY OF AUGUST 2026
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI
WRIT PETITION NO: 10760/2023
Between:
Natta Adamu and Others
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others
...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. NIMMAGADDA REVATHI Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following order:
Aggrieved by action of the respondent authorities in insisting the petitioners to vacate from their agricultural land admeasuring Ac.0.71 cents and Ac.0.64 cents respectively originally covered by Sy.Nos.53/2 & 53/3 situated at Rangannagudem Revenue, Bapulapadu mandal, Krishna district without following due process of law, the present writ petition is filed.
2. There was no representation for the petitioners on 31.07.2026 and today also, there is no representation for the petitioners.
3. Sri Venkata Satyanarayana, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue upon instructions of Tahsildar, Bapulapadu mandal submitted that, there is some dispute between the petitioners and some private persons wherein a suit vide O.S.No.424/2023 was filed. He further submitted that, the authorities have never interfered with the subject properties and never insisted the petitioners to vacate the same as alleged by the petitioner.
4. Recording the said submissions, without expressing any opinion over the possession, as the authorities have stated that they are not interfering with the subject properties, there remains nothing for adjudication in this writ petition and the same is liable to be closed.
Accordingly, the writ petition is closed. No costs.
Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.
________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI BRS