Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/12114/2025 of GUDDATI NAGESWARA RAO Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, on 30 December 2025
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 12114/2025 Between: Guddati Nageswara Rao ...PETITIONER AND The State Of
APHC010230932025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
[3332]
WEDNESDAY,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI
WRIT PETITION NO: 12114/2025
Between:
Guddati Nageswara Rao
...PETITIONER
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others
...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
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. MANIKANTA THOTA Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV
2. GP FOR REVENUE
3. K S MURTHY ASSOCIATES The Court made the following order:
The short grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents are not taking any action against the 6th respondent who is constructing Ramalayam in Gramakantam Land without any approvals/permissions in Sy.No.149/3 in Pydikonda village, Thondangi Mandal, Kakinada District which was earmarked for construction of Bulk Milk Collection unit.
2. Sri Y.Koteswara Rao, learned standing counsel on instructions of Panchayat Secretary, Pydikonda Gram Panchayat dated 29.12.2025 submitted that no construction of temple was taking place in the subject land as alleged by the petitioner and prayed to close the writ petition.
3. Sri Manikanta Thota, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed to close the writ petition by recording the above submission.
4. In view of the submission made by the learned standing counsel that there was no construction of temple taking place in the subject land as alleged by the petitioner, there remains nothing for adjudication and the writ petition is liable to be closed.
Accordingly, the writ petition is closed. No costs.
Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.
______________________ RAVI CHEEMALAPATI, J BRS