Andhra Pradesh High Court
WA/496/2026 of Komma Uma Devi Vs Pamuru Santhamma, on 23 April 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3558] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA WRIT APPEAL NO: 496/2026 Writ Appeal
APHC010182682026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF APRIL
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA
WRIT APPEAL NO: 496/2026
Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent to allow the Writ Appeal by setting aside the Order dated 11.12.2025 in W.P No. 31565 of 2025 and consequently to dismiss W.P. No. 31565 of 2025
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. KOMMA UMA DEVI, W/O. LATE KOMMA BHASKAR, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O. D NO. 7/F2, BALIJAPALLI STREET, RAJAMPETA, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. 516115.
...APPELLANT AND
1. PAMURU SANTHAMMA, W/O. P.VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/O. BAVIKADAPALLI, PLLLAMPET MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. - 516 127
2. THE STATE OF AP, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 522001
3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT AT RAYACHOTI -516 269
4. THE JOINT COLLETOR, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT, DISTRICT COLLECTOR OFFICE, RAYACHOTI. - 516269
5. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, RAJAMPET REVENUE DIVISION ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT 516127
6. THE TAHSILDAR, PULLAMPET MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT - 516127
...RESPONDENT(S): IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 pleased to dispense the filing of the original Order copy dated 11.12.2025 in W.P. No. 31565 of 2025 and to permit the appellant to file its downloaded copy, IA NO: 2 OF 2026 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 prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be grant leave to the Appellant/Third Party. To file Writ Appeal challenging the Order dated 11.12.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 31565 of 2025, IA NO: 3 OF 2026 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 pleased to condone the delay of 86 days in filling the above Writ Appeal IA NO: 4 OF 2026 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 pleased to permit the Appellant/Third Party, to file relevant documents In the Writ Appeal challenging the Order dated 11.12.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 31565 of 2025, IA NO: 5 OF 2026 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 pleased to suspend the operation of the Order dated 11.12.2025 in W.P. No.31565 of 2025 pending disposal of main Writ Appeal Counsel for the Appellant:
1. KALEEMULLA S Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR REVENUE
2. KANDERI CHETHAN The Court made the following:
I.A.No.2 of 2026 IN/AND WRIT APPEAL No.496 of 2026
The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy)
Heard Sri M.Sohail Shareef, learned counsel representing Sri Kaleemulla S, learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. Petitioner is not party to the writ petition in W.P.No.31565 of 2025. She is a third party to the said writ petition. She seeks leave to challenge the order of the learned Single Judge passed in the above writ petition. Even according to her own admission she has nothing to do with the subject land. Her only grievance is that she is the adjoining land owner of the subject land and that she got right to have ingress and egress through the subject land and on account of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, the said right is affected and thereby she sought leave to file the present appeal against order of the learned Single Judge.
3. The order of the learned Single Judge only pertains to granting liberty to the respondents in the writ petition who are the official respondents to initiate appropriate proceedings and pass orders in accordance with law by following due process and till such orders are passed the respondents are directed not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the writ petitioner over the said property.
4. By the said order, the petitioner is nowhere aggrieved. When she has no right over the subject land and when she claims only right of ingress and egress to the said land, we do not see any valid legal ground to grant leave to her to prefer appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge. If at all her right to have ingress and egress through the said land is affected, she has to pursue her remedy in the appropriate forum according to law. Therefore, the petition in I.A.No.2 of 2026, seeking leave to prefer appeal is dismissed.
5. Consequently, the Writ Appeal also stands dismissed and all other applications are closed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
_____________________________ JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA
Date: 24.04.2026 JLV