Andhra Pradesh High Court
WA/402/2026 of PALAKURTHI MANASA Vs MEDAPATI RAMACHANDRA REDDY on 7 April 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3558] WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTH 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: 402/2026
APHC010180082026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY,THE EIGHTH 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: 402/2026
Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent Hon'ble Court may be graciously pleased to (a) ADMIT this Writ Appeal (b) Grant Stay of the impugned order dated 01.12.2025 passed in W.P.No.3383 of 2020, pending disposal of this Appeal, and in particular stay the operation of the direction to the Tahsildar, Samarlakota to consider the mutation application of the 1st Respondent Writ Petitioner (c) On hearing, ALLOW this Writ Appeal, set aside the impugned order dated 01.12.2025 passed in W.P.No.3383 of 2020, and dismiss the Writ Petition filed by the 1st Respondent (d) Declare that the Sale Deed dated 20.04.2013 (Doc.No.4950/2013) executed by Tadi Srinivasa Reddy in favour of Smt. Palacharla Tulasamma is subject to the result of the lis in O.S.No.173/2013 and stands vitiated by the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (e) Declare that the Pattadar Passbook and Title Deed held by the Appellant for Sy.No.111/3 to an extent of Ac.2.43 cents at G.Medapadu Village, Samarlakota Mandal, East Godavari District shall remain in force until set aside by a competent Civil Court (f) Direct the 1st Respondent to seek his remedy through a Civil Suit before the competent court for declaration of title and possession (g) Pass 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. PALAKURTHI MANASA, D/O. SATTIBABU, AGED 29 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 12-34, G.MEDAPADU VILLAGE, SAMARLAKOTA MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.
...APPELLANT AND
1. MEDAPATI RAMACHANDRA REDDY, MEDAPATI RAMACHANDRA REDDY, S/O. VENKATA REDDY, AGED 29 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 10- 131, MAHENDRAVADA VILLAGE, ANAPARTHI MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.
2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI AT AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KAKINADA, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.
4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KAKINADA, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.
5. THE TAHSILDAR, SAMARLAKOTA, SAMARLAKOTA MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT(S):
pleased to dispense with the Certified Copy of the order passed in order dated 01.12.2025 in W.P.No.3383 of 2020 on the file of this Hon'ble Court, in the above Writ Appeal and pass pleased to condone the delay of 92 days in filing the above W.A in order dated 01.12.2025 in W.P.No.3383 of 2020 on the file of this Hon’ble Court, passed by His Lordship otherwise the petitioner will suffer irreparable loss and hardship and pass pleased to stay the operation of the order dated 01.12.2025 in W.P.No.3383 of 2020 passed by learned single judge until further orders and pass Counsel for the Appellant:
1. N RAVI PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR REVENUE
2. P DURGA PRASAD
The Court made the following: JUDGMENT:- (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy)
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that nothing survives in this appeal for adjudication and the writ appeal became infructuous in view of the fact that the Tahsildar has already passed orders on 28.03.2026 pursuant to the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
2. Therefore, recording the said submission of learned counsel for the appellant, the Writ Appeal is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.
________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
_____________________________ JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA
Date: 08.04.2026 ARR
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA
WRIT APPEAL NO: 402/2026 Date: 08.04.2026
ARR