Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP(PIL)/40/2023 of MALLA BULLIBABU Vs THE STATE OF AP on 30 December 2025
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WP(PIL) NO: 40 of 2023 Bench Sr.No:-15 [3552] Malla Bullibabu ...Petitioner Vs. The State of AP and others ...Respondents ********** Advocate for Petitioner: Mr. P. Nrusimha Pavan Kumar appearing vice Mr. Bolla Venkata Rama Rao Advocates for Respondents:
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.
APHC010142832023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
WP(PIL) NO: 40 of 2023 Bench Sr.No:-15
Malla Bullibabu ...Petitioner Vs. The State of AP and others ...Respondents ********** Advocate for Petitioner: Mr. P. Nrusimha Pavan Kumar appearing vice Mr. Bolla Venkata Rama Rao Advocates for Respondents: GP for Panchayat Raj & Rural Dev., Mr. N. Srihari (Standing Counsel for ZPP MPP and Gram Panchayat), Mr. Y. Sudhakar
CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 31st December, 2025. P C :
The present Petition has been filed challenging the inaction on the part of the official respondents to evict the private respondents from the land in question, which is stated to be Gramakantam land.
2. Learned counsel for the private respondents, Mr. Y. Sudhakar, states that the petitioner herein, who is also an Ex-Sarpanch of Kasimkota Gram Panchayat, had maneuvered the issuance of the Show Cause Notices by the Gram Panchayat, which Show Cause Notices have since been challenged in
HCJ & CGRJ WP(PIL)_40_2023
W.P.No.7660 of 2023 and batch, where status quo has already been ordered to be maintained.
3. It is stated that the private respondents are in fact owners of the land and have inherited the property from their ancestors, who had purchased the subject land by virtue of duly executed sale deeds decades ago.
4. Be that as it may, since action already appears to have been initiated by the Gram Panchayat and the matter is under consideration by the learned Single Judge, we find no reason to continue the present PIL, which is accordingly closed.
No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, in this case shall stand closed.
DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ.
CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J. SSN