Andhra Pradesh High Court
WA/66/2025 of MALLELA SATYANARAYANA Vs THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH on 21 June 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX WRIT APPEAL No: 66 of 2025 Between: 1. MALLELA SATYANARAYANA, S/o.LATE AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/o. PIDAPARRU VILLAGE, KOLLIPARA MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT,
APHC010032882025
IN THE H
(
MONDAY, TH
TWO T
WR
Between:
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. MALLELA SATYANA AGED ABOUT 70 YE VILLAGE, KOLLIPAR PRADESH.
2. PUCHAKAYALA CHA ABOUT 60 YEA BADIRAJUPALEM VIL DISTRICT, ANDHRA P
1. THE STATE OF A PRINCIPLE SECR SECRETARIAT BUIL PRADESH.
2. THE COMMISSIONER VIJAYAWADA, ANDH
3. THE ASSISSTAN DEPARTMENT, GOLL
4. SRI SOMESWARA KOLLIPARA MANDAL OFFICER.
5. KAMBHAMPATI S VENKATESWARLU, R/o.D.No.1-24/201, PA STREET, TADIGAD DISTRICT.
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) E TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JUNE THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX IT APPEAL No: 66 of 2025 ARAYANA, S/o.LATE LAKSHMI NA EARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/o. PID RA MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT, AKRADHAR REDDY, S/o.RAMI REDD RS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/o.D LLAGE, THOTLAVALLURU MANDAL, PRADESH. ...APPE AND NDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED RETARY, ENDOWMENTS DEPA DINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, R, ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, GO HRA PRADESH. NT COMMISSIONER, ENDO LAPUDI, VIJAYAWADA. SWAMY TEMPLE, PIDAPARRU L, GUNTUR DISTRICT, REP.BY ITS EX SITARAMA SARAMA, S/o.LATE AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, OCC: B AVAN NILAYAM-1, KODALI KOTESW DAPA PENAMALURU MANDAL, ...RESPON WA_66_2025
ARAYANA, DAPARRU ANDHRA DY, AGED D.No.2-38, KRISHNA ELLANT(S) D BY ITS ARTMENT, ANDHRA OLLAPUDI, OWMENTS VILLAGE, XECUTIVE E K.S. USINESS, WARARAO KRISHNA NDENT(S):
WA_66_2025 CORAM:- HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE Mrs.LISA GILL HON’OURABLE Mr. JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA DATE : 22.06.2026 Counsel for the Appellant(S):
1. Mr.SRINIVASULU P Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. Mr.KOTESWARA RAO KAPPERA SC For Endowments
2. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS
3. Mr.D.V.SASIDHAR
WA_66_2025 The Court made the following Judgment: (Per Hon’ble Justice Ninala Jayasurya)
1. With consent of counsel on both sides, the matter is disposed of by way of the following order:
2. Aggrieved by order dated 02.12.2024 in W.P.No.28026 of 2024, present appeal has been preferred.
3. The grievance of writ petitioner was that respondents 2 to 4 therein are not protecting land measuring Ac.2.00 cents belonging to 4th respondent- temple situated in R.S.No.61/8 of South Valluru Village, Thotlavalluru Mandal, Krishna District. Referring to some representations made in this regard by writ petitioner and a legal notice dated 05.10.2024 stated to have been issued to the respondents 5 & 6 therein / appellants and recording the submission that necessary legal action would be taken against them, learned Writ Court issued a direction to 4th respondent to take necessary steps for restoring Ac.2.00 cents in Survey No.61/8, in accordance with Law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of copy of the order.
4. Heard learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard learned counsel for the 5th respondent / writ petitioner, and learned counsel representing official respondents.
5. Learned counsel for appellants inter alia submitted that order under challenge was passed without issuing notice to appellants herein and as such, same is liable to be set aside on that ground. Stating that subject matter
WA_66_2025 property is a private land and in such circumstances, direction issued by the learned Writ Court without even affording an opportunity of hearing, let alone a notice, is untenable, violative of principles of natural justice, he seeks to set aside order of learned Writ Court.
6. This Court finds merit in the submission made by learned counsel for appellants and the impugned order without affording an opportunity to appellants / respondents 5 & 6 to put forth their case is not valid or legal. Learned counsel for respondent No.5 / writ petitioner had not disputed that order under appeal was passed without notice.
7. In the aforementioned circumstances, order under challenge is set aside.
8. Writ Petition shall be listed before Writ Court having Roster, for consideration and appropriate orders.
9. Needless to observe that this Court has not gone into merits or otherwise of rival claims.
10. Accordingly, Writ Appeal is disposed of. No costs.
Consequently, pending Miscellaneous Applications in the Writ Appeal, if any, are dismissed accordingly.
(LISA GILL)
(NINALA JAYASURYA) CHIEF JUSTICE
JUDGE
Date: 22.06.2026 BLV
WA_66_2025 HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE Mrs.LISA GILL HON’BLE Mr.JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
W.A.No: 66 OF 2025 Date: 22.06.2026 BLV