Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/6935/2026 of SANAPUREDDY RAJASEKHAR REDDY Vs THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH on 12 March 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH FRIDAY, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY THE HONOURABLE SRI WRIT PETITION NO: 6935/2026 Between: 1. SANAPUREDDY RAJASEKHAR REDDY, S/O. LATE CHINAKONDA REDDY, AGED 72 YEARS, OCC. CULTIVATION, PAKKIRAPALLE VILLAGE,
APHC010126142026
IN TH
FRIDAY,
TWO
THE HONOURABLE SR
THE HONOURAB
W
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. SANAPUREDDY R REDDY, AGED PAKKIRAPALLE V KADAPA DISTRICT
1. THE STATE OF AN GOVERNMENT, VELAGAPUDI, AMA
2. THE DISTRICT LE ITS CHAIRMAN, KA
3. AVULA SUBBA RED
4. AUVULA PRASAN YEARS, OCC.HOU V.N. PALLE MANDA
5. AUVULA DHARIKA REDDY, MINOR, PALLE MANDAL, K E HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRAD AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH O THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT RI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVEND BLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR G RIT PETITION NO: 6935/2026 RAJASEKHAR REDDY, S/O. LATE
YEARS, OCC. CULTIVA VILLAGE, CHINNACHOWK, KADAP T-516001. AND NDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS SE L.A. J DEPARTMENT, S ARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT-52223 EGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY, KAD ADAPA DISTRICT. DDY, (DIED). NNA KUMARI, W/O. SUBBA REDD SE WIFE, R/O. D.NO.1 THAGEDUPA AL, KADAPA DISTRICT-516502. A REDDY ALIAS BABY ALIAS THANU R/O. D.NO.1, THAGEDUPALLE V KADAPA DISTRICT-516502. ...RES DESH
H DRANATH ROY GEDELA CHINAKONDA ATION, R/O. PA CITY, YSR ...PETITIONER ECRETARY TO SECRETARIAT,
37. DAPA REP. BY DY, AGED 40 ALLE VILLAGE, U, D/O. SUBBA VILLAGE, V.N. SPONDENT(S):
CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.6935 of 2026
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 or order or a direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents more particularly the 2nd respondent/District Legal Services Authority, Kadapa, rejecting the application vide I.A. SR.No.7422/25 in O.S.No.678 of 2022 for amendment of Lok Adalat Award by incorporating the suit schedule and survey numbers in the award, which is illegal, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and also violative of Principles of Natural Justice, consequently direct the 2nd respondent receive the I.A. SR.No.7422/25 in O.S.No.678 of 2022 and amend the Lok Adalat Award by incorporating the suit Scheduled property along with survey numbers and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 2nd respondent to receive the application in I.A. SR.No.7422/25 in O.S.No.678 of 2022 on the file of the court of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa for amendment of Lok Adalat award passed by the 2nd respondent by incorporating the suit scheduled property and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. SUBBA RAO JANDHYAM Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR LAW LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS
CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.6935 of 2026
The Court made the following: ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy)
Heard learned counsel for the writ petitioner.
2. An award was passed in the Lok Adalat as per the terms of settlement arrived at by both the parties. Thereafter, an application was filed by the writ petitioner seeking amendment of the said award relating to the suit schedule property and its survey numbers. The said application was returned with an office objection as to how the application is maintainable. But, without re-presenting the said application after answer the objection, he has filed this writ petition, stating that the said application was rejected. In fact, the application was not rejected. It was only returned to explain as to how the application is maintainable. The writ petitioner as well can re-present the application stating as to how the application is maintainable. Therefore, we do not find any ground to entertain this writ petition.
3. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the writ petitioner to comply with the objection and re-present the application. If the Lok Adalat still refuses to entertain the application by passing any order to that effect, he is at liberty to approach this Court and challenge the same. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
_____________________________ JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA
Date: 13.03.2026 MDP