WP/21381/2008 of Perla Chinna Rao, Vs The District Collector, on 10 March 2026

1. PERLA CHINNA RAO,, S/O. CHINA DANAYYA, FISHERMAN, R/O. DOOR NO. 16-18-14, TARAKARAMA NAGAR, DUMMULAPETA, KAKINADA, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

2. PERLA LAKSHMI,, S/O. CHINNA RAO, COOLIE, R/O. DOOR NO. 16- 18-14, TARAKARAMA NAGAR, DUMMULAPETA, KAKINADA, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER(S) AND

1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, KAKINADA.

2. THE TAHSILDAR KAKINADA RURAL TAHSIL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

3. THE AP STATE HOUSING CORPORATION LTD, REP BY ITS DISTRICT MANAGER, KAKINADA URBAN DIVISION, BEACH ROAD, KAKINADA, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.S

4. SRI MUTTA GOPALA KRISHNA, S/O. VENAKATESWARLU, R/O. GANDHI NAGAR, KAKINADA, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

...RESPONDENT(S):

NJS,J

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. T V JAGGI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. K MALLIKHARJUNA MOORTHY

2. SUDHAKAR REDDY T (SC FOR APSHC)

3. GP FOR REVENUE

4. K MOHAN RAMI REDDY

NJS,J

The Court made the following Order:

Heard Mr. T V Jaggi Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. K Mallikarjuna Moorthy, learned Standing Counsel representing the respondent No.3.

2. The writ petition is filed seeking to declare the action of the respondent No.3 in not allotting the flats constructed in the lands allotted to the petitioners i.e., Plot No 909 T.S No.1984/2, 1983/4 a & b, 1984/3, 2002 etc of Dummalapeta, Hamlet of Suryapet Kakinada Rural Mandal East Godavari District as illegal, arbitrary and for consequential directions.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners while referring to the averments made in the affidavit in support of the writ petition, has drawn the attention of this Court to the order dated 29.09.2008, wherein a learned Judge, at the time of admitting the writ petition granted interim relief, as prayed for. He submits that to secure latest instructions, he addressed a letter to the petitioners and even, as per the registered postal track report, the notices appear to have been delivered, but the petitioners did not turn up.

4. On the other hand, Mr. K Mallikarjuna Moorthy, learned Standing Counsel representing the respondent No.3, placed a copy of the latest instructions dated 10.03.2026 received from the Special Deputy Collector/District Head Housing, for perusal of this Court, wherein it is inter alia stated as follows: “…Sri Perla Chinna Rao S/o. Chinna Danayya and Smt. Perla Lakshmi W/o. Perla Chinna Rao, both are wife and husband both are applied for Housing Scheme, as per the norms eligible for One house to one family. Accordingly, one house was sanctioned in the name of Smt. Perla Lakshmi W/o. Perla Chinna Rao under Indiramma Phase-2 (2007-08) Housing Scheme and constructed their house in their own site”.

5. In the light of the above stated position, it appears that the petitioners are not interested in pursuing the matter.

NJS,J

6. Therefore, this Court is inclined to close the writ petition. However, with a liberty to the petitioners to seek appropriate directions, in the event the matter requires to be heard on merits.

7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is closed. Interim orders granted on the earlier occasion shall stand dissolved. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA Date:11.03.2026 Ksj