Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/6818/2020 of Vambarelli Lakshrni, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, on 5 April 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 6818 OF Between: 1. VAMBARELLI LAKSH YEARS, R/O. D.NO.1 MANADAL,WEST GODAVRI DISTRICT 2. MAKA ANANTHA LAKSHM,, FEMALE., AGED 40 YEARS,
APHC010110652020
IN THE H
(
MONDA
TWO T
THE HONOURABLE
WRIT
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. VAMBARELLI LAKS YEARS, R/O. D.NO MANADAL,WEST GO
2. MAKA ANANTHA L FEMALE., AGED 4 VILLAGE, UNGUTUR
3. MUPPIDI VENKATE R/O. UPPAKAPAD GODAVARI DISTRIC
4. KANKIPATI RAJU, S R/O. 4-119, UPPAKA GODAVARI DISTRIC
5. KANKIPATI RAVI TE YEARS, R/O. 4-87, WEST GODAVARI D
6. MUTYALA VENKAT AGED A.3OUT. 41 UNGUTURU MANDA
7. KANDELI MURALI ABOUT
YEAR UNGUTURU MANDA
8. JAGANNADHARN A 37 YEARS, R/O.1- MANDAL, WEST GO
9. DARAPUREDDI AM YEARS, R/O.UPPAK HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) AY, THE SIXTH DAY OF APRIL THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT E SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDA PETITION NO: 6818 OF 2020 SHMI,, W/O. RAMULU, FEMALE, A O.1-33/2, UPPAKAPADU VILLAGE,UN ODAVRI DISTRICT LAKSHM,, W/O. VENKATESWARARAO 40 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.3.86/1, UPPA RU MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DIST SH,, S/O. MUTYALU, AGED ABOUT 5 DU VILLAGE, UNGUTOU MANDAL CT. S/O. NARASAYYA, AGED ABOUT. 3 APADU VILLAGE, UNGUTURU MANDA CT. EJA,, S/ONAGESWARARAO, AGED A UPPAKAPADU VILLAQE, UNGUTURU DIST TESWARARAO,, S/O. CHINNA BHU YEARS, R/O.4-41.7, UPPAKAPADU AL, WEST CODAWRI DISTRICT. KRISHNA,, S/O. NAGESWARARAO RS, R/O.4-110,
UPPAKAPADU AL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ANJI,, S/O. VENKATESWARARAO, AGE -142, UPPAKAPADU VILLAGE, UN ODAVARI DISTRICT. MMAJI,, W/O. SURYARAO, AGED A KAPADU VILLAGE, UNGUTURU MAND
AVA AGED 60 NGUTURU O, HINDU, AKAPADU RICT. 54 YEARS, L, WEST 9 YEARS, AL, WEST ABOUT 32 MANDAL, CCHIYYA, VILLAGE, O, AGED VILLAGE, ED ABOUT NGUTURU ABOUT 66 AL, WEST
10. DASARI LAKSHMI SRINIVAS,, S/O. CHINNA VENKATA SWAMI, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/O.1-65, UPPAKAPADU VILLAGE, UNGUTURU MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT.
11. KANDELLI SATISH KUMAR, S/O. NAGESWARARAO, AGED ABOUT
YEARS, RIO.14-20-21 YAGARLAPALLI VILLAGE, TADEPALLIGUDEM MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT.
12. SIRRA VEERAMMA, W/O. MAHAMKALI, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/O.4-102, UPPAKAPADU VILLAGE, UNGUTURU MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT.
13. MAKA RATTAYYA, , S/O. SUBBARAO, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, R/O.4-15, UPPARAPADU VILLAGE, TAGUTURU MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT.
14. DULAPALLI SURIBABU,, S/O.NAGESWARARAO, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O.4-131, UPPAKAPADU VILLAGE, UNGUTURU MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER(S) AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
VELAGAPUD, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ELURU.
3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ELURU REVENUE DIVISION, ELURU.
4. THE MANDAL TAHSILDAR, UNGUTURU MANDAL, WEST
5. THE VILLAGE REVENUE OFFICER, UPPAKAPDU VILLAGE, UNGUTURU MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT
...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. PATURI SRINIVAS CHOWDARY Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR REVENUE (AP)
The Court made the following order:
Heard Sri Paturi Srinivas Chowdary, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri M.Chandra Sekhar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondents.
2. The instant writ petition is filed challenging the notice dated 11.01.2020 issued by the 4th and 5th respondents.
3. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the 4th respondent issued a notice dated 11.01.2020 requiring the petitioners to show cause as to why they should not dispossess the petitioners from the subject property. It is stated by the petitioners that the said notice was served on them on 04.03.2020.
4. On 17.03.2020, this Court granted status quo to be maintained by both the parties. However, proceedings dated 24.03.2020 were issued by the 4th respondent cancelling the pattas issued in favour of the petitioners.
5. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that although an order was passed on 24.03.2020 directing the VRO to take possession of the land, the petitioners are still in possession of the land and have not been physically dispossessed.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that although an order of resumption was passed, it was not served on the petitioners. The said position is strengthened by the statement of the 4th respondent in the counter-affidavit.
7. Having regard to the same, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that liberty may be granted to the petitioners to challenge the resumption order dated 24.03.2020.
8. Having regard to the fact that the resumption order dated 24.03.2020 was not served on the petitioners, this Court deems it appropriate to grant liberty to the petitioners to challenge the said proceedings dated 24.03.2020.
9. With the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, all pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.
______________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA Date: 06.04.2026 BSK
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA
WRIT PETITION NO: 6818 OF 2020
Date: 06.04.2026 BSK