Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/12658/2021 of Smt. Nagamalla Lalithamma@Lalitha DIED Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 22 March 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: Between: 1. SMT. NAGAMALLA LALITHAMMA@LALITHA DIED, SMT. NAGAMALLA LALITHAMMA@LALITHA, W/O SANKAR, AGE. 66
APHC010218902021
IN THE H
(
MONDAY, TH
TWO T
THE HONOURABLE
WRIT P
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. SMT. NAGAMALLA NAGAMALLA LALITH YEARS,OCC. HOUSE PRODDATUR TOWN
2. NAGAMALLA SANKA ABOUT77 YEARS, VASANTHAPETA, DISTRICT.
3. NAGAMALLA SURES 53 YEARS, OCC P COLONY, OPP CHITTOOR DISTRICT
4. VADDI MANJULA,, W 54 YEARS, OCC HO PRODDATUR TOWN
5. BATHALA JAYASUD ABOUT 49 YEARS, O A9 SAI SWAPN HYDERABAD, TELAN ON RECORD AS PE PER COURTS ORDE
1. THE STATE OF A HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) HE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF MARCH THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT E SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDA PETITION NO: 12658 OF 2021 A LALITHAMMA@LALITHA DIED HAMMA@LALITHA, W/O SANKAR, E WIFE, R/O D.NO 24/564, VASANT AND MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT. AR,, S/O. N. CHINNA SUBBAIAH, , OCC BUSINESS, R/O.D.NO PRODDATUR TOWN AND MANDAL SH BABU,, S/O. N. SANKAR, AGE PROFESSOR, R/O. 22-8-179/1, SR P. ELITE CLUB, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI T, A.P. W/O. VADDI NARASIMHA RAO, AGE USEWIFE, R/O.D.NO 24/657, VASANT AND MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT. HA,, W/O. PRABKAR BATHALA, OCC HOUSEWIFE, R/O. FLAT NO. 209 NA RESIDENCY, ROAD NO.4, JUBILE NGANA PETITIONERS 2 TO 5 ARE B ER LRS OF DECEASED SOLE PETITI R DT.04.02.2026 IN IA.NO.3 OF 2026 ...PETIT AND NDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS P
AVA D, SMT. AGE. 66 THAPETA, AGED 24/564, , KADAPA ED ABOUT I NAGAR (URBAN), ED ABOUT THAPETA, AGED PLOT NO. EE HILLS, BROUGHT ONER AS TIONER(S) PRINCIPLE
SECRETARY,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIAT BULDINGS, VELGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, A.P.
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KADAPA DISTRICT.
3. THE THASILDAR, MANDAL REVEUNE OFFICE, PRODDATUR MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT.
4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KADAPA, KADAPA DISTRICT, A.P
5. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICE, RURAL POLICE STATION PRODDATUR, KADAPA DISTRICT. A.P.
6. GANDLURU VEERA SIVA REDDY, S/O PEDDA VEERA REDDY, AGED . 70 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, EX MLA, R/O D. NO 31/1000, YMR COLONY, PRODDATUR TOWN AND MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT, A.P
7. BHUMIREDDY SREENIVASULA REDDY, AGED ABOUT. 50 YEARS, S/O CHINNA VENKATA REDDY, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O D. NO 3/945 YMR, COLONY, PRODDATUR TOWN, KADAPA DISTRICT, A.P
8. BOBILLI RANGANAYAKULU, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, S/O OBANNA, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O 7/89-A, DRIVER KOTTALA STREET, PRODDATUR TOWN, KADAPA DISTRICT, A.P
9. BHUMIREDDY KARUN REDDY, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, S/O LATE CHALAMA REDDY, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O D. NO. 7/821, UPSTAIRS, YMR, COLONY, PRODDATUR TOWN, KADAPA DISTRICT, A.P.
10. NARALA BALI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, S/O SANJEEVA REDDY, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O 4-280, KANAPALLE VILALGE, PRODDATUR MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT, A.P ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. V NITESH Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR HOME
2. GP FOR REVENUE
The Court made the following order:
Heard Sri V.Nitesh, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondents.
2. The grievance of the petitioners in the instant writ petition is against the inaction of respondent Nos.2 and 3 in preventing unofficial respondent Nos.6 to 10 from encroaching upon the petitioners’ land in an extent of Ac.1.09 cents in Sy.No.118 and Ac.0.22 cents in Sy.No.452, situated in Modemmedipalli Village, Kothapalle Panchayat, Proddatur Mandal, Krishna District. Despite bringing to their notice. The petitioners further sought a consequential direction to remove the said encroachments.
3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue submits that the subject property is private land and that the grievance of the petitioners is against the unofficial respondents. Therefore, the official respondents have no obligation to protect the property from the alleged encroachments.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that a civil suit has already been filed against the unofficial respondents seeking declaration of title and for grant of permanent injunction.
5. Having regard to the contentions advanced, this Court is of the view that the relief sought in the writ petition is civil in nature and Writ of Mandamus is sought against a private individual, which in my view would not be maintainable and the petitioners must approach the competent Civil Court for adjudication of the dispute. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed.
6. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, the petitioners are at liberty to avail the remedies available under law. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
______________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA Date: 23.03.2026 BSK
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA
WRIT PETITION NO: 12658 OF 2021
Date: 23.03.2026 BSK