WA/363/2026 of LINGAM BALA KRISHNA SON OF VENKATA RAMANAIAH Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, on 9 April 2026

APHC010177332026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

WRIT APPEAL No.363 of 2026 Bench Sr.No:-2

Lingam Bala Krishna, S/o Venkata Ramanaiah ...Appellant Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and another ...Respondents ********** Advocate for Appellant : Mr E. Seshu Mahesh Babu representing Mr Pathi Siva Prasad Advocate(s) for Respondent(s) : Mr P. Vengala Reddy representing Mr Gudapati Lakshminarayana [SC for Municipalities in Rayalaseema Region] for R.2

CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI DATE : 10th April, 2026 P C :

We have heard learned counsel for the appellant.

2. The present writ appeal has been filed challenging the interim order, dated 31.03.2026, passed by the learned single Judge by virtue of which the amount which is otherwise prescribed in the notice, dated 27.03.2026, was directed to be deposited in a graded fashion i.e., for depositing half of the amount within one week from the date of passing of the order and the balance within two weeks thereafter.

HCJ & RC, J WA_363_2026

3. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the aforementioned direction runs contrary to the earlier direction issued by the writ Court in WP.No.10528 of 2016 in which, while disposing of the writ petition, a direction was issued to the Commissioner of Nandikotkur Municipality to consider the revision petitions enumerated in the order and for passing appropriate orders thereupon.

It is stated that the order further envisaged and directed that the petitioner would pay the admitted property tax amount and further that no coercive measures would be taken for collection of the enhanced property tax.

4. It is not denied that the revision petition which was otherwise directed to be considered and decided by the Commissioner of the municipality concerned has still not been decided yet for reasons unknown.

5. We fail to understand as to why a revision would remain pending for decision to be taken by the Commissioner of the municipality concerned despite specific Court directions.

6. It is also stated by learned counsel for the appellant that as per directions of the learned single Judge in the earlier writ petition, the admitted amount of approximately Rs.14,000/- per year is being regularly deposited.

HCJ & RC, J WA_363_2026

7. Be that as it may, we dispose of this Writ Appeal with a direction to the Commissioner of Nandikotkur Municipality to dispose of the petitioner’s revision petition pending before it within four weeks from the date the copy of the order is made available. No further time shall be sought for deciding the said revision petition. In case the revision is not decided within the time prescribed, the Commissioner would himself be answerable to the delay in which case each day’s delay may have to be explained by the concerned officer.

Further, we direct the parties to complete the pleadings before the learned single Judge within four weeks from today. The operation of the order impugned in the present writ appeal, dated 31.03.2026, shall remain stayed till the writ petition is considered on its merits after the pleadings are completed.

Registry is directed to list WP.No.8386 of 2026 before the learned singe Judge having Roster, on 08.05.2026.

No order as to costs.

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ

RAVI CHEEMALAPATI, J Vjl