Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/2012/2019 of Earla Mahesh Babu and 2 others Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh and 3 others on 29 March 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3459] MONDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 2012/2019 Between: 1. EARLA MAHESH BABU, S/O. KONDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/O.
APHC010044812019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM
WRIT PETITION NO: 2012/2019
Between:
1. EARLA MAHESH BABU, S/O. KONDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 26
YEARS,
R/O.
H.NO.
3-167,
RAJUPALEM
VILLAGE,
KOTHAPATNAM MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.
2. KUNKALA VENKATARAMI REDDY, S/O. VENKATA SUBBA
REDDY, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/O. MAIN ROAD, KOTHAPATNAM, KOTHAPATNAM MANDAL, PRAKASAM
DISTRICT.
3. KOLLURI VENKATESWARLU, S/O. CHENNAIAH, AGED
ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/O. H.NO. 43-123, RAJUPALEM
VILLAGE,
KOTHAPATNAM
MANDAL,
PRAKASAM
DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.
2. THE
DISTRICT
COLLECTOR,
PRAKASAM
DISTRICT,
ONGOLE.
3. THE SUB-COLLECTOR, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.
4. THE THASILDAR, KOTHAPATNAM MANDAL, GANDHI
NAGAR, KABADIPALEM, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in not taking any action on the representation Dt-21.01.2019 and other representations made to the Respondents by the petitioners by following the procedure established by law as illegal, arbitrary, against the principles of natural justice, unreasonable and violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioners under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
IA NO: 1 OF 2019
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 to direct the Respondents not to allot the lands in S.No.74, 75, 76/3, 77, 78, 80 total extent of Ac.
20.00 cents in Rajupalem Village, Kothapatnam Mandal, Prakasam District, to any third party as those the lands which were exclusively using as pond and road to the Agricultural lands of the village pending disposal of the writ petition.
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. GORLE GOPALAKRISHNA
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR ASSIGNMENT (AP)
The Court made the following
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.
ORDER:
When the matter was listed on 15.06.2022, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioners and, consequently, the matter was directed to be listed on 22.06.2022 under the caption of ‘For Dismissal’. Again, consecutively on 22.06.2022 and 03.03.2026, when the matter was listed, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioners.
2. Even today, when the matter is listed under the caption of ‘For Dismissal’, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioners.
3. It appears that the learned counsel for the petitioners is not interested to prosecute the matter.
4. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. No order as to costs.
Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________________ JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM Date:30.03.2026 DSH