Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/30912/2024 of KATTEPOGU MANIKYA RAO Vs THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH on 31 December 2024
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] TUESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 30912/2024 Between: Kattepogu Manikya Rao ...PETITIONER AND The
APHC010590782024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3329](Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA
WRIT PETITION NO: 30912/2024
Between:
Kattepogu Manikya Rao
...PETITIONER
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others
...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1.GORRIPATI SUDHAKAR
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP
The Court made the following:
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.
ORDER:-
1. This writ petition is filed claiming the following relief:
“…To issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of Respondent No.3 in not considering petitioner’s representation dated 18.10.2024 as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and against Principles of Natural Justice and consequently direct the Respondent No.3 to consider my representation dated 18.10.2024 and to pass such other order or orders...”
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the Respondents.
3. The claim of the petitioner cannot be considered since the Civil proceedings are pending between the petitioner and unofficial Respondents regarding title of the property. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner cannot be granted by way of extraordinary jurisdiction of the constitution of India.
4. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the petitioner to agitate his rights by Court of law which is already initiated vide O.S.No.255 of 2015.
5. With the above-said direction, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
6. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed.
31[st] December, 2024 Knr
______________________________________
JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA
knr
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA
WRIT PETITION No.30912 of 2011
31[st] December, 2024